SCRAPBOOK

Please note that items posted to the Scrapbook are not subjected to our strict editorial processes and may
contain views and opinions contradictory to that of Freedom Publishers Union. They are simply snippets of information and links
which we believe our readers may find interesting.

Political Notes and Other Items

August 4, 2018 - Allegations against SAS troops in report

Members of the elite Special Air Service Regiment have been linked to an armed robbery, the theft of weapons, missing classified documents, unpaid
speeding fines and drinking on duty, in an internal report that also found the unit's leadership was at "breaking point". The confidential briefing by
then special operations commander Jeff Sengelman reported a litany of failings of leadership and accountability "across the full span of command
responsibilities".
More...

Donald Trump appeared to order his attorney general Jeff Sessions to pull the plug "right now" on special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia with a tweet on Wednesday morning. Trump frequently rages on Twitter about the Mueller
investigation, which the president calls a "witch hunt".
More...

Australian Jewish leaders have lambasted Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg for allowing Holocaust denial to be a protected form of
speech on Facebook. Zuckerberg defended the rights of Facebook users to publish Holocaust denial posts, saying he didn't "think that
they're intentionally getting it wrong".
More...

Security and Privacy Items

July 31, 2018 - Why US passengers are being secretly tracked by air marshals

Questions are being raised over a new American airport security program where US air marshals shadow the movements of ordinary domestic
passengers and report suspicious behaviour, such as repeated trips to the bathroom, to the Transport Security Administration (TSA). The
'Quiet Skies' program, first reported by the Boston Globe, identifies travellers who could pose a threat but have no criminal record and
aren't on any terrorist watch list.
More...

From Monday, people who do not want their medical records stored on the national electronic database will have three months to opt out.
More...

Items Requiring Immediate Public Attention

August 1, 2018 - Assange may finally leave Ecuadorian embassy in London as health worsens

Julian Assange, who has spent more than 2,230 days in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, is expected to leave the building soon with his health deteriorating, sources
say. This latest information about the Wikileaks founder, who was already expected to leave the embassy "in the coming weeks," was broken Wednesday by Bloomberg which
cited "two people with knowledge of the matter."
More...

**********

July 21, 2018 - Ecuador will imminently withdraw asylum for Julian Assange and hand him over to the UK. What comes next?

Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno traveled to London on Friday for the ostensible purpose of speaking at the 2018 Global Disabilities
Summit (Moreno has been using a wheelchair since being shot in a 1998 robbery attempt). The concealed, actual purpose of the President's
trip is to meet with British officials to finalize an agreement under which Ecuador will withdraw its asylum protection of Julian
Assange, in place since 2012, eject him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and then hand over the WikiLeaks founder to British
authorities.
More...

**********

Nothing

Nothing

Moral and Ethical Injustice

Nothing

Nothing

**********

Nothing

Nothing

**********

Nothing

Nothing

RESEARCH

All research published to Freedom Publishers Union is performed in collaboration with FPUorg.

It is published with the intention of establishing truthful information based on documentative proof available to us and
in the public domain. Where documentative proof is not possible, we will clearly outline the resources and information we have
used in our research and how we have reached our conclusion.

9/11 - World Trade Center Attacks

#research #911 #wtc

Research area of focus 1

Overall dissatisfaction with final conclusion of cause and chain of events which led to the
hijacking and crashing of civilian planes into WTC 1 and 2, The Pentagon, "Flight 93" and
the collapse of WTC buildings 1 and 2.

**********

Research area of focus 2

Overall dissatisfaction with final conclusion of cause of collapse of WTC 7 building.

**********

Research area of focus 3

General dissatisfaction with intelligence gathering procedures and failure to act on known intelligence prior to event and
secrecy surrounding follow up investigations by the CIA.

**********

Our research scope

NO TEXT HERE

Titanic Inquiry

#research #titanic

Research area of focus 1

General dissatisfaction that public never received the conclusive and definitive explanation of the failures of engineering of
the Titanic, which led to the sinking of the vessel as a result of damage incurred by iceberg.

**********

Research area of focus 2

NO TEXT HERE

**********

Research area of focus 3

NO TEXT HERE

**********

Our research scope

NO TEXT HERE

Please use the "Find" function in your web browser to find specific content. The following hashtag search terms may help you find
something specific.

Freedom Publishers Union (v11.0)

Opening the gates of freedom of information and transparency. Making the internet and open-source
software more accessible. We publish articles, documents and files on topics of interest related to,
but not limited to:

Freedom of Information

Digital Privacy Violations

Mass-surveillance

Government Spying

Online Anonymity

Encryption and Cryptography

Computer Security

Government Transparency

War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

Military Conflict in Middle-East

Civilian Casualties of War and Drone Strikes

Civil and Human Rights Abuse

Animal Mistreatment

And a general pursuit of the truth surrounding major world events!

Politics is everywhere. It influences our lives all over the world, whether intentionally or unintentionally. You
can not ignore the influence of politics and the effects that political decision making has on citizens in every
country in the world.

At Freedom Publishers Union, our political view is largely libertarian, who believe in fairness and democracy.
There's no denying that democracy is by far the best form of governance. But we accept that it is not the only form of
governance. Irrespective of the governing model of any country, we advocate fairness, transparency of government and
peace.

Politics also play a major part on the stories that we cover and the articles that we publish. We publish information
based on real facts, along with the politics that surround the story. This is primarily why we have adopted a basic set
of core political values, which we not only declare as being fair, open and democratic, but we will always consider
these core values when it is necessary for us to take notice of political influences in a story.

Core political values:

Civil Liberties - We believe that no individual or government entity should have the right to force against
the will and choices of any other individual, within the boundaries of the common law of the day and with respect
to upholding the individual's civil liberties.

Freedom of Speech - We advocate and support the right to speak out privately and publicly, without threat of
violence or retaliation if one is to disagree.

Digital Liberties - We will always defend to the highest extent possible, the internet's founding design
principles, the freedom and openness it permits and will always resist any attempts to control it.

Net Neutrality - Uninterrupted, clean internet access is a fundamental element to the operations of the
internet's core design. We advocate that internet access should be open and equal to all, by the prevention of
gatekeepers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down content based on the source, destination, owner or
intended data access purpose.

Censorship - We support full freedom of expression off-line and online, therefore oppose any form of government
censorship, regulation or attempts to control communications, media and technology.

Mass-surveillance - Unjustified and illegal surveillance threatens essential trust between the government and
its citizen. Mass and dragnet surveillance is a direct invasion of privacy and impedes on digital liberties.

Whistleblower and Journalist Protections - Whistleblowers are an essential tool to keep check on potential
abuse of power. Journalism is equal to the necessity of whistleblowers. We believe in the natural right to speak
out on matters of abuse of power and intentional wrongdoing, without fear of legal prosecution and with reasonable
confidence that disclosures will be made public.

Public Broadcasting - We support any measures that guarantee immediate and future funding of public broadcasting,
which must always remain free of government, political and business interference of operations which has the
potential of influencing media bias.

Copyright and Creative Commons - Copyright benefits big business, specifically audio and video production studios.
Copyright laws as they stand in many countries are unbalanced and unfair. Instead of pursuing individuals for simply
downloading a podcast which may be unavailable locally, a few songs for casual listening or a few movies for private
viewing, we believe copyright laws need to be significantly reformed to allow for fair-use provisions for individuals.
Additionally, we advocate that more focus be shifted on encouragement of the use of more open and creative licensing
models, such as Creative Commons. These open licensing models are designed to allow for a productive, suitable and
fair balanced access model which respects the rights of creative material creators, producers, distributors and
consumers.

Universal Basic Income - We support the consideration for implementation of Universal Basic Income (UBI), for all
citizens. There are many economic and welfare benefits through a suitable roll-out of UBI which would see all citizens
receive an equal routine payment, which in addition to the economic and welfare benefits, would see creativity spawn
as a result of new ideas and concepts being developed through a more equal society.

Global Fair Trade - We support free trade agreements which are initiated and negotiated using an open and
transparent process. But we will always oppose trade pacts which are negotiated in secrecy and kept from the public
domain.

Climate Change and Environment - We support science-based action on climate change and therefore accept the
majority of the scientific community's analysis which concludes on the need to address the potential for problems as
a result of inaction. Action to address climate change will vary between countries around the world, but we advocate
that particular attention be paid to suitable environmental management plans and protection of citizens and their
surrounding areas.

Additional focus:

Australia - Due to our strong operational presence in the country of Australia, we pay specific attention to four political
issues:

Nauru and Manus Island closure - Australia's offshore detention program is inhumane, has justified legal questions
over its operations, violates the basic integrity of human rights and violates multiple articles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. We believe both detention centers at Nauru and Manus Island should be shut down and a refugee
and asylum seeker processing center should be established on the mainland. We also believe that more oversight is required
and more transparency and disclosure is required to restore confidence in Australia's immigration program.

Coal Seam Gas (CSG) extraction - The direct damage and effects on the environment from Coal Seam Gas (CSG)
extraction are too clear to ignore. We can not support any expansion of CSG and call for an immediate halt to all CSG
extraction operations in Australia.

Murray-Darling Basin management - The Murray-Darling Basin is of crucial importance to Australia's long-term water
plan. We want to ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority continues to hold control over management of the Basin.
Additionally, we call for a complete review of all details of the Authority's management legislation to ensure that all
management and operations details remain accurate, to provide the best results to enable and allow for a coordinated,
efficient and sustainable water and resources delivery for the Murray-Darling Basin. All water allocations must be based
on a priority delivery mechanism, whilst guaranteeing a fair and balanced system for agriculture, irrigation, domestic
and recreation.

Great Barrier Reef protection - Australia's Great Barrier Reef is a world heritage listed environment. Serious
concerns are consistently outlined on the current and future health of the reef and surrounding marine life. We would
like to see much greater improvements in protection of the Great Barrier Reef. Current protection measures fall short
in providing the results required to avoid any further increase of irreparable damage to the reef and surrounding coastal
ecosystem.

Additional notes:

The outlined political views of Freedom Publishers Union are based on the data and facts available to us at any given time. If
the facts change over time, our political views may change to reflect this. However, regardless of future information, our
political views will always support ensuring that people everywhere have the best information and the freedom to understand and
act upon it, as individuals working toward the common good of man.

We can also be contacted securely via encrypted service WhatsApp. Just add our cell phone number +61 402650018

Virtual Offices

To associate our publications through appropriate jurisdictions and locales which are most relevant to the
information and documents being presented, we distribute through our controlled network of internally directed,
national and international virtual offices which are used as publishing portals.

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavic Press

MISSION STATEMENT

With the gradual emergence of frequently used terms of "fake news", "post-truth" and "alternative
facts", Freedom Publishers Union wants to make a brief Statement to reiterate our commitment to
our readers.

Freedom Publishers Union Editorial Team is absolutely committed to ensuring our writing and
publishing strictly adheres to our internal publication principles. We will always ensure we remain
non-bias and remain as neutral as possible. We will only present fact based content which we believe
to be authentic, genuine, accurate, well-researched and fact checked by our in-house Editorial Team,
against sources we believe to be the best and most reliable and reputable in the media and publishing
industry.

The President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, has shaken the traditional media
landscape. Some media organizations have succumbed to falling to the same low-level remarks,
commentary and views that Trump assumes. Whilst the more respected media organizations have
remained true to their publishing principles and continue the practice of true journalism and
publishing.

Freedom Publishers Union will not be moved by Donald Trump's erratic and intolerable commentary
and behavior. We, along with our US-based media partners, will not be moved by any such media
reforms, bans, blockages and/or censorship that he attempts to implement which may potentially
impede on freedom of the press in the United States and any after-effects it has in the global circuit.
We remain committed to publishing exactly what our moto states - "Publishing what is right and what
is important". We will always operate within the boundaries of the law. Yet, as a representative of the
free press, we also have an ethical responsibility to publish content that is in the public interest,
regardless of whether its legally questionable according to Donald Trump's media reform(s) or own
political agenda.

If we see journalism and publishing is under threat, then we will respond accordingly through our
publications, regardless.

Freedom Publishers Union - Editorial Team

EDITORIAL PROCESS

Our Editorial team is absolutely adamant that we maintain strict editorial and publishing standards and will always ensure our
process remains open to public scrutiny, as much as possible.

The following list of websites are our trusted sources of news, information, facts and research material. We consistently rely
upon and use these sources for research, data gathering, comparison, fact checking and to ensure source diversity.

We use all of the information gathered from these sources on a specific story or topic and create a basis for our own
publications to ensure fact, accuracy and reliability remains at the forefront of publishing importance.

(In alphabetical order)

ABC News (Australia)

ABC News (USA)

AFP

Airwars

Al Jazeera

Antiwar

Associated Press

BBC News

Bloomberg

CBS News

China Daily

CNBC International

CNN

Cryptome

Deutsch Well

Financial Review

Financial Times

FOX News

Hindustan Times

MarketWatch

NBC News

Politico

Reuters

RT

Sputnik International

Spiegel Online (International)

The Australian

The Christian Science Monitor

The Conversation

The Economist

The Epoch Times

The Guardian

The Hill

The Intercept

The Japan Times

The LA Times

The New York Times

The Sydney Morning Herald

The Wall Street Journal

The Washington Post

Wikileaks

Wired

We specifically rely on careful selection of media sources as our prime basis, as many of them are among the few outlets that still
employ their own reporters, so their stories aren't going to be 'rip-and-read' from a wire service or web aggregate service that
simply drops the breaking headlines onto the wire.

These sources are almost always guaranteed to report with an 'eye-witness' point of view, not some third-party being re-quoted
repeatedly. Because of their private news teams, they tend to each pick up something different about a story - slightly different
details and perspective.

Further, because they aren't in the 'first to print' mode full-time, they tend to publish detailed follow-up stories withing
48 hours that more thoroughly sort the facts and clarify verified information from rumors.

Then we proceed to review all of our other sources on the same story for several days after the initial story goes to press.
If all are reporting the same core facts, then those are most probable to be true, or at least perceived to be true from several
perspectives.

We use internal editorial categorization techniques of liberal and conservative sources and determine if their publications
echo the same core facts as what we consider our master sources. Then we can make an assessment to conclude that everyone saw the
same thing. We then look for the starkest differences between the baseline, left and right sources. These are what we call the
bias indicators.

On rare occasions, we use source information from media entities and individuals not listed above. We call these 'outside
sources'. When we use outside sources, we take the information and will always attempt to back up the information we receive with
our trusted sources, in accordance to the standard process.

During the entire process, we also rely on independent media outlets for either document source or source information to accompany
our publications.

The entire process is not streamlined in a strict sense, as we allow for much flexibility during the writing and editorial
process. But we are always extremely careful to ensure that at the time of publication, all information and material that we
publish and release remains as accurate as possible, based on all available information that we have access to, through our media
sources.

We are always open to challenge and scrutiny from our readers. If you believe we have made an error or published wrong, incorrect
or defamatory information then we recommend that you contact our office so that we can rectify any actual errors or misinformation
that is determined to be a legitimate mistake.

CAMPAIGNS AND INITIATIVES

We consistently exercise our ethical and moral responsibilities to press and advocate on various
important international issues:

Call for public release of all documents associated with "The Panetta Review".

Call for public release of full unredacted ~6000 page Report from Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, on the Study of CIA Torture.

Call to release NSA whistleblower, Reality Winner, on bail until due trial date.

Continued call for the US to drop Grand Jury and all investigations into Wikileaks and its Editor,
Julian Assange.

Continued call for the UK to stop the ongoing detainment to the Ecuadorian Embassy of Julian Assange
and allow for free passage to safety.

Call for full disclosure and release of Grand Jury documents, on Eric Garner case, who died after
being arrested by banned choke-hold, by NY Police Officers.

Renewed call for release of Anonymous hacker, Jeremy Hammond.

ACHIEVEMENTS AND SUCCESS

Freedom Publishers Union called for Clemency and release of US Military whistleblower, Chelsea
Manning. She was provided early release in May 2017.

Freedom Publishers Union called for the release of Journalist, Barrett Brown, who was released
early in November 2016.

Freedom Publishers Union called for the public release of previously classified 9/11 documents,
which were referred to as the "28 pages". Many other freedom of information advocates and
organizations echoed the call. July 2016, the US Government publicly released the documents
with some redactions.

Freedom Publishers Union contacted the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calling for
full investigation into Colorado Gold King Mine spill. The EPA did not respond directly to our
correspondence, although the organization has followed all required protocols and has
maintained consistent publication and public release of information and data associated with
the environmental spill, in addition to accepting full responsibility for the environmental spill.

Freedom Publishers Union contributed to the worldwide mass-media campaign and
condemnation of conviction and imprisonment of Al Jazeera Journalists, Peter Greste, Mohamed
Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. Specifically, we contacted the Egyptian Embassy in Canada and
Australia. The eventual result of the worldwide campaign was the release of Mohamed Fahmy
and Baher Mohamed, which followed an earlier release of their colleague Peter Greste.

Freedom Publishers Union signed the Wikileaks Open Letter in Defense of Wikileaks Journalists,
as initiated by Human Rights Lawyer and Member of Courage Foundation Advisory Board,
Renata Avila.

Freedom Publishers Union Editor-in-Chief, Chris McGimpsey-Jones, signed the Statement of
Solidarity Against Online Harassment, as initiated by the Tor Project.

COLLABORATION

We regularly rely on the information and expertise of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Free Software Foundation (FSF) and
other key advocacy groups. Additionally, we regularly collaborate with the Council Body of Research and Study, David Institute for
Politics and Science and FPUorg. Our relationship with the aforementioned organizations, among others, is limited to the specific
purpose of information gathering, fact checking and/or source information verification. The final details published on Freedom Publishers Union
are applicable to Freedom Publishers Union only and are not reflective of the views, opinions or positions of the organizations we collaborate
with.

February 23, 2018 | ABC Management and Editors Must Stand Up Against Government

To ABC Management;

Freedom Publishers Union is an independent publishing organization that operates primarily out of Australia, with co-operation
from a limited number of international media groups which assist to extend our media reach and publication locale.

On February 20, 2018, our Asia/Pacific Press Office published quite a strong worded Editorial which made accusations against
the ABC network, of giving in to government pressure on stories that it deemed critical against government economic policy.

Our Editorial was mainly directed at the ABC's handling of two recent stories publishing by Emma Alberici - One of which was
removed in its entirety and another which was highly edited, critical analysis removed before the highly edited version was
re-published.

We now understand that the story that was removed has also since been re-published to the ABC website but has been drastically
re-written by Alberici.

We believe this comes as a result of pressure Emma Alberici was put under by the ABC Management, which was unacceptable for a
senior journalist of her experience and journalistic integrity. If media reports are to be believed, then we understand Alberici
has sought advice from lawyers following bad treatment in this instance, from ABC Management. However, we can not confirm this
information which is being reported in the media.

Freedom Publishers Union are staunch advocates against government interference and editorial tampering, with Australia's free
and open press. Our same advocacy and free press principles that we protect extend to all countries in the world.

The ABC was once known for its tough nature in dealing with government criticism against its publications. We feel the recent
handling of Alberici's stories by the ABC, which saw multiple government complaints and resulting in the ABC making drastic
editing of the stories in question, has tarnished the reputation for the ABC and has given the network a new alternate reputation
that it will act upon government requests through official complaints made to the network.

The ABC has publicly claimed that the specific reasons for the changes that were made on Alberici's stories was for editorial
reasons, and not the direct result of political interference through the complaints that were lodged. Freedom Publishers Union
disputes this official explanation. Our dispute is echoed throughout the media industry.

This is a concern for us, as Freedom Publishers Union has always been committed to supporting public broadcasting in Australia,
including directly campaigning for protection of the ABC and SBS networks.

We remain committed to supporting Australia's public broadcasting sector. But we would like to urge the ABC to stand up against
governmental attempts at editorial interference and tampering.

Freedom Publishers Union Public Relations Department

August 15, 2016 | Changes to ABC Transcription Service

To Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC);

As the Director of a small independent publishing business, I write to you today expressing my genuine concern over
media reports, published today at The Guardian, which outlines future changes to ABC and its transcription service.

I can not possibly explain how disappointed I am that the ABC has made the decision to either reduce the service of
providing timely transcripts of important news and current affairs programming, whilst abruptly proceeding with the
discontinuation of others.

Transcripts provided by the ABC are a crucial source of reference and citation for publishers and journalists. Through my
work with GC Media Publishing Management and other associated roles within the publishing business, I personally will
be affected by this latest decision, by the ABC.

I use the transcripts on a weekly basis from a range of different ABC programs. They are used for a variety of roles within
our business and their discontinuation will place a major hurdle in our publishing operations as our staff would be forced
to source other references of source media, which we believe to be more biased, less accurate, less reliable and less
reputable than what is currently provided by the ABC.

It would be a massive loss for so many Editors and Journalists and the industry as a whole, which already fights many
challenges in the digital era of media - a sector GC Media Publishing Management understands very well. The decision
by the ABC is unjustified and will be devastating for the public broadcasting sector.

I would like to see the ABC review its decision, without further delay. I believe the consequences will be devastating for
the accuracy of information in the publishing and media landscape of Australia, if this decision is to be implemented as
described to the best of our understanding.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - Director

EDITORIALS

[Filed from REYKJAVIC | International Media Group] August 11, 2018 | Unconfirmed Number of Civilians Killed in Yemen Attack, Indicative of a
Saudi-led Massacre

It is now widely accepted by the political world for Yemen to be recognized as the world's worst ongoing humanitarian disaster, which unfortunately
has no end in sight, nor does the war that is the cause of so much human pain and suffering.

Thursday this week, a school bus which was travelling through a marketplace in Yemen which had many children onboard was bombed. Saudi-led coalition
forces claim that their military response was a reaction to a previous attack by Houthi rebels. The Saudi's claim their attack was targeting a legitimate
military (yet unspecified) asset and maintain it was completely legal.

Nasser Arrabyee, a Yemen journalist currently in Sanaa, said there were no Houthi fighters in the vicinity of the market where the attack was carried
out. Arrabyee also claims that the area is well known to be a marketplace and equally well known for having no military installations. He directly accuses
the Saudi's of regularly targeting schools, weddings, markets and other innocent civilian targets. We can verify those claims, however we note that the
claims have been echoed by Al Jazeera journalist, Mohammed Adow, who says, "The Saudi's tend to deny these kinds of actions which have sadly become all
too common.". Others critical of the Saudi-led operations in Yemen have displayed the same concerns expressed by the journalists. Adow reminds us though,
that it's not just the Saudi's failing to take responsibility for their actions. He says the Houthi's are also failing to acknowledge their own reckless
military actions too - making it a balanced argument.

Despite the claims by the Saudi's that their target was legitimate, it remains unclear what exactly that target was or how it resulted in the
deaths of more civilians.

The exact numbers of confirmed dead remain unverified at present due to limited resources on the ground. Quality Publishing Works' sources have been
able to determine the most likely probable number of deaths, according to available information which has been made public, is 50 civilians killed. This
same number is also reported by Turkish news outlet TRT World. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reports that 29 of the casualties are
children at the age of 15 or below.

Unverified details released from the Yemen television network, Al Masirah TV, suggest 39 people were killed and 51 wounded. While it remains no more
specific about how many killed or wounded were children, it did report initially that many were children.

According to details reported by CNN, the Houti-controlled Health Ministry is claiming that 50 people were killed and 77 wounded. These numbers are
slightly inflated compared to figures provided by more reputable sources. These numbers remain unverified by Quality Publishing Works.

CNN also reports that Saudi-state media has acknowledged the incident, but states that according to their figures, only 1 person was killed.

On those killed, CNN makes reference to the numbers provided by ICRC. Al Jazeera also reports the same figure, but falls short of revealing combined
numbers for those killed and wounded.

In a report from the Israeli news outlet, Haaretz, Abdul-Ghani Nyeb, who is the Head of the Health Department in Saada, reportedly told Reuters that
updated numbers had increased the death toll to 43, with 61 wounded. More alarmingly, he claims that most of the children that were killed were under the
age of 10. If confirmed, this would be a significant reduction from the previous reports by ICRC, that children were age 15 and below. However, he did not
reveal how many children were included in the updated death toll. Quality Publishing Works could not verify the updated numbers.

SBS News reported numbers of those killed and wounded which also reflect those of CNN and Al Jazeera. The Council Body of Research and Study declared
to Quality Publishing Works that this is suggestive that these numbers are most probable to be the most accurate at the time we go to press.

Following the attack, the United Nations (UN) called for an immediate investigation into the incident.

The United States of America (US) and other Western nations provide military equipment, arms and intelligence assistance to Saudi Arabia. While the
Saudi-led coalition claim to have a functioning committee which investigates military incidents which result in mass casualties (including civilian
casualties), all indications suggest that the committee has mostly cleared the Saudi's of any blame from the incidents it has previously investigated.
Admittedly, we have no documentative evidence to confirm our conclusion. But we see no obvious indication that the committee will hold the Saudi
Government/Military to account for this attack.

There was some initial confusion surrounding the official responses provided by The White House and US State Department. The National Security Council
referred to the incident by claiming there was "conflicting reports in global media". While the State Department was busy claiming to have urged the
Saudi-led coalition to "conduct a thorough and transparent investigation". When questioned on why there was differing views on the incident between the
departments, it was claimed by the State Department that there was no differing views and that they shared the same view. We believe their responses to be
open to interpretation.

Russian news outlet, Russia Today (RT), took the opportunity to accuse Western nations of ignoring the severity of the humanitarian disaster which has
unfolded in Yemen over the course of the war since it started in 2015. RT has claimed that the US and the UK prioritize their support for the war in Syria,
as they have extremely lucrative weapons business interests with supplying arms to Saudi Arabia. These weapons supplied by the US and the UK are used to
boost the military capabilities of Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen and effectively allows it to continue. While the war in Yemen continues, so does the
arms trade which is sure to work in favor of the US in terms in military economics, at the expense of disposing human life for political gain.

US military support to Saudi Arabia has been verified and has been well documented. However, Quality Publishing Works could not verify the claims made
by RT that the UK also supports the Saudi operation through military equipment support or trade. But the claims by RT do echo similar reports by The
Guardian published several months earlier, which also claimed the UK supports the Saudi's in addition to support provided from France, Spain and Italy.

Quality Publishing Works is extremely concerned, as is the entire world, of the duration of the war in Yemen. To the outside world, it appears no
progress has been made and it can not be entirely sure of what progress is being sought. Too many civilians are being killed in a war that does not appear
to have an end goal, along with no side willing to take responsibility for the civilians that are continuously getting caught up in reckless and
irresponsible military operations.

Rockets are still being launched, bombs continue to drop and the air strikes are set to continue.

Quality Publishing Works continues to urge all fighting parties to seek avenues to an immediate cease fire, commence peace talks under the advice and
cooperation of the UN with a view to finally draw the war in Yemen to a close and stop the killing of innocent civilians - men, woman and children. The
world deserves better.

As we go to press with this story, we learn of early unconfirmed reports which indicate more attacks involving civilian casualties have occurred. It is
likely as a result of military operations in Idlib and Aleppo (Syria), allegedly from air strikes from Syria and Russian forces. More precise details remain
unavailable at this time.

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavic Press

Freedom Publishers Union has learned that some of world's biggest technology companies have banned from their platforms, broadcaster Alex Jones.
Some content produced from his website, Infowars, has also been subjected to the ban.

Alex Jones is a controversial broadcaster and his news website is largely considered conspiracy theory, rather than respected journalism. This is
very much reflected in the ratings illustrated by the MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK website which rates Infowars as "Conspiracy-Pseudoscience". At the time of
going to press, the Conspiracy Level for Infowars remains at the highest rating of "Tin Foil Hat". The Pseudoscience Level remains at second highest rating
of "Strong". And the Factual Reporting rating sits at "Very Low".

Irrespective of all negative ratings, community opinion or perception, Alex Jones and Infowars shares the same (US) First Amendment guarantee
to freedom of speech as others enjoy. Since its founding in 1999, Infowars have consistently been accused of spreading misleading and false
information. Recently, some of the information (unspecified by Freedom Publishers Union) and views expressed from Alex Jones have been claimed to be an
attempt to create civil unrest and incite community anger through spreading what some claim to be purely hate speech. It is stated on this basis, that
Silicon Valley has banned Alex Jones and Infowars from their platforms.

At the time of going to press, Freedom Publishers Union can verify that Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify have all taken various degrees of
action to ban Alex Jones from using their services to spread his information. So far, Twitter has not taken any action against Alex Jones' account and
he retains control over his active verified account.

Twitter has previously demonstrated strange and unpredictable behavior by taking action on accounts for reasons that are contradictory to its claims
of platform policy, with often confusing responses being provided as to why accounts are suspended. Taking action on Twitter accounts appears to be very
selective and not driven by any kind of platform policy. It is common to see accounts suspended and then reinstated, without justification for the
original suspension being provided. [2] In an article published on CNBC on August 6, Twitter stated that no action will be taken against the accounts of
Alex Jones or Infowars as the accounts do not violate the company's policies. Then just today, the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, acknowledged in an article
published again to CNBC, that the company has "been terrible at explaining our decisions in the past" and urges that they are working to make improvements
in this area.

On the bans, Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars said that it sets "a chilling precedent for free speech.". [3] Freedom Publishers Union disagrees with
the summary expressed from Watson as his comments are suggestive that the action taken against them from selected social media platforms are a form of
censorship. This is not true censorship. It is actually an implementation of editorial bias, which demonstrates that the social media platforms can (and
most likely do) have a tendency to influence the direction of the content on their platforms. Infowars is only excluded from selected social media platforms.
Not all of them. The Infowars website is still very much accessible on the visible and open internet. Rather than being a harbinger of censorship, the Infowars
conflict demonstrates the true meaning of free speech. Editorial bias is the expression of specific opinions and filtering of information to support a
political or social agenda. It is also a key part of free speech, as a way of establishing context for interpreting information. Infowars has a specific bias
and filter for presenting information, as do newspapers, television and most social media. Editorial bias is as much a part of free speech as the words
themselves and needs preservation as much as reporting and opinion do.

In the US, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. This is not subject to qualified freedom. Any speech is allowed to be stated. If that
speech is considered harmful, damaging or offensive, then appropriate legal action may be taken against it. But free speech cannot be banned or censored
until the specific instance causes that harm. Exercising free speech outside of an open forum - on private services such as social media, printed in a
newspaper or presented on television program - is left to the discretion of the owners of the service. Unless the property is a guaranteed open forum which
enables any form of speech, the owners have every right to control the content allowed, on what can be effectively considered their property. The internet
backbone, as a common carrier, is prohibited from discriminating against any communication so long as it causes no direct harm. Any internet content or
activity considered illegal or harmful must be prevented in the location of the origin of the activity. Therefore, the laws of the location of the data and
server determine the legal action that can be taken.

In summary, Alex Jones' content can be banned on private servers of social media services, as these are not considered common carrier utilities and
are under no obligation to provide open access. However, the Infowars website cannot be blocked in the US, as this would violate the First Amendment.

Despite reservations expressed internally from Freedom Publishers Union, it was agreed that just as the American Civil Liberties Union defends Nazi's
rights to free speech, Freedom Publishers Union must also defend the rights of the voices that we may disagree with. We feel it is very important to have open
access to public media and we equally feel Freedom Publishers Union has an ethical and moral responsibility to protect it. If we do not, we could be faced with
only a short slide from freedom-to-censorship. Once one topic of expression and discussion is banned, it opens up the potential for any topic to also be banned
arbitrarily. We fear that in our journey in the defence of freedom and the pursuit of fairness and justice on arbitrary restrictions to prevent perceived
unacceptable ideas, a 'controlling body' may be established. From that, it is only semantics that will separate banned ideas from approved ideas. Those
running this 'controlling body' will be the ones deciding on what is socially acceptable and what is not. Ultimately, it is the establishment of such a
system that we must defend against, no matter how hateful or distressing a message might be to us.

Finally, it's very important to understand that Alex Jones' claim of blanket censorship is incorrect. Being banned by social media is not censorship
in the same way we think about censorship applied against Chinese or Russian news. The ban placed upon Alex Jones and Infowars is literally reflective of
the editorial policy of those services, which is legal and defendable. If Infowars is blocked by internet service providers' firewalls or removed from DNS
servers, then that would be censorship. The clarification surrounding the difference between "banned" and "censored" should be clear and applied.

As advocates of true free speech, Freedom Publishers Union must ensure that public networks provide carriage to all content, while only placing limits
or blocking to networks that are causing technical or security problems and not because of the content or the message it contains. Even if we personally or
collectively feel that a site is spreading hatred or outright offends us to any degree, we must still fight to defend their rights to use the public networks,
as anything less is censorship.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

Notes on amendments:

[1] The title of the article has been amended from the original, to better clarify the main point of the editorial.

[2] The original article claimed that Twitter had failed to provide any indication that Twitter would or would not suspend the accounts of Alex Jones or
Infowars. This was incorrect and brought to our attention after the article had gone to press. The article has been amended to reflect the correct
information that was provided by Twitter, as early as August 6, 2018. Our apologies for this oversight.

[3] The original article stated that we agreed with the initial views expressed from Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars, that the
bans placed on Alex Jones and Infowars set "a chilling precedent for free speech.". This was incorrect and not a true reflection on our position. Instead,
we aim to make the stronger point that the social media bans are actually an implementation of editorial bias. The article has been amended to make this
clarification.

[Filed from MUMBAI] August 4, 2018 | Peter Dutton and Australia's Immigration Program Continues to Violate Human Rights and Still
Detain Children on Nauru

Freedom Publishers Union have been long-term outspoken public opponents of Australia's abusive and unjust offshore immigration program which
detains asylum seekers and refugees in offshore centers isolated on the remote locations of Nauru and Manus Island. The Australian Government
operates the facilities under the deceiving official titles of "Processing Centers", in effort to disguise their true operations and purpose -
detaining asylum seekers and refugees that arrive illegally on its borders.

The centers continue to operate in secrecy, continue to block media access and continue to violate even the most basic of human rights of those
detained.

The immigration policy of Australia has again been re-exposed to public scrutiny, along with raising a large question mark over the decisions
and actions of the controversial Head of the Department of Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, who has more political power and responsibility than any
other Minister in the Liberal Party Cabinet.

Mr. Dutton has constantly been criticized for his hard-line, uncompromising approach and unmoved opposition to immigration. On Thursday, an
Australian Federal Court judge ordered that Mr. Dutton reverse his prior decision and transfer a seriously ill young female from Nauru to
mainland Australia. Although no specific location was specified, it is understood that she is now in Sydney with family and receiving medical
treatment.

The medical details surrounding her situation are detailed inside public Federal Court documents, which have been accessed by Freedom
Publishers Union. It is documented the female has engaged in self-harm, suffers severe psychiatric failures and is in a constant severe depressive
state. Although it is not specified explicitly in the documents we had access to, there is absolutely no room for doubt to conclude that her
severely depleted medical state is the result from extended detention on Nauru.

Mr. Dutton rejected the original request for the female to be transferred off the remote nation of Nauru so that appropriate medical treatment
could be sought. Instead, he attempted to claim that the her condition failed to qualify as the required evidence of proof of her alleged serious
medical condition. Mr. Dutton outright ignored the advice and reports from several medical personnel on Nauru which assessed the female's condition.
Mr. Dutton's decision was rightly rejected by the Federal Court judge and he was ordered to allow for the transfer of the female to the mainland.

Mr. Dutton has engaged in multiple attempts, possibly up to 12 times, at blocking transfers of detainees - adults and children. However these
attempts are consistently overruled by the Federal Court which force Mr. Dutton to reverse his decision.

Mr. Dutton's actions are placing detainee's health and lives at risk and stripping many of the detainees on the islands of their human rights.

Freedom Publishers Union reached out to a member of a major political party inside Australia. We were able to get the following comments from a
person who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity. "It is very clear, and has been clear for a long time, Minister Dutton is giving absolutely no
indication of attempting to manage the welfare of those detained in centers on Nauru and Manus Island. He never has had the welfare of them in his
interest. What interest has been shown is not even close to the acceptable standard required under international law and he continues to initiate
Australia's violation of human rights.".

Citing Federal Court documents, Freedom Publishers Union reveals that the female has been detained on Nauru since 2013, along with her Mother,
two sisters and one brother. There are also some extended family which are also detained on Nauru. It is not specified how long her family members
have been in detention for or how she and her family members arrived. However, it does specify that the female is classified as a "refugee", yet she
still remains detained.

Reports from medical personnel on Nauru who assessed the female concluded that her declining medical condition was so severe that she should be
transferred off Nauru within 24 hours (of one of the [undated] assessments) as there was no appropriate medical facility on Nauru that could see that
she would receive the required treatment. It is unknown and not specified in the court documents accessed by Freedom Publishers Union when this
assessment was made. Furthermore, it remains unclear of just how much time had passed since the assessment and the recommendation was made to the time
the female was actually transferred off the island. Despite attempts, Freedom Publishers Union has been unable to confirm this information.

Despite repeated claims made from the Liberal Government of Australia and its immigration department that no children are detained inside the centers,
this case proves contradictory to these claims. For legal reasons the female's age is not revealed. This is suggestive that the female is a minor and
qualifies as a child.

It remains extremely concerning that mainstream media has not been able to make this determination that children are still being detained on the
center. In this specific case, she has been detained since 2013 - 5 years to date.

Freedom Publishers Union continues to advocate that Australia immediately shut down its offshore immigration detention program and proceed, without any
unnecessary delay, to develop a local program which sees processing of those seeking asylum, on the mainland.

Additionally, we stress that this must be accompanied by appropriate operations transparency and media access rights to the center. Furthermore, an
independent oversight body must be established to ensure that Australia upholds its obligations for human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights charter, to which Australia is a signatory to.

At the moment, Australia is engaging in continued human rights abuse with both the Liberal and Labor Parties supporting the nation's abusive immigration
regime which strips these humans of their basic rights, dignity and access to suitable medical facilities.

It is only through a complete reformed immigration policy that Australia can begin to restore its reputation on the international stage for treating
asylum seekers as humans, upholding their natural rights and setting an example to other nations that also engage in continued human rights abuse. Because
at the moment, Australia's international reputation in this area is absolutely shattered.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

August 3, 2018 | Why Australia Needs its Own Torture Report

Recent reports on Britain's complicity in torture of detainees by the US during the "war on terror" were alarming. Even more alarming is that no
questions have been asked about whether Australia should launch an independent inquiry into what our government knew about the torture committed by
our main security ally, the US.

The 1984 UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is the main convention that prohibits torture
under international law. No nation is ever permitted to use torture or support the torture used by others.

Despite this global ban, torture is still used by states around the world to inflict physical or mental pain and suffering on individuals. It is
often used to gain information and confessions and to intimidate and punish individuals.

Australia has a legal and moral obligation to prevent torture. Without an independent Iraq torture investigation, however, questions will remain
over what Australia knew, and how it responded to the abuse of detainees by the US.

The UK torture report

On June 28, the UK Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) handed down two damning reports outlining Britain's complicity in the US'
torture of detainees during the "war on terror".

The reports found UK intelligence officers knew about the ill-treatment of detainees by foreign agencies. It also found that Britain supported, or
failed to prevent, the rendition of detainees to countries known to use torture and said the UK's policies on detainee treatment overseas needed to be
reformed so the country does not become complicit in torture again.

These reports received significant media attention in the UK. The reports are currently being examined by Scotland Yard to determine whether a police
investigation should be launched, and have led to calls for a further independent inquiry into the UK's complicity in torture.

Australia's knowledge of US torture

Although investigations have been carried out into Australia's knowledge of and role in the US torture program, they have been inadequate and leave
many questions unanswered.

In 2004, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee investigated what the Australian Defence Force and Australian government knew about
the mistreatment of prisoners being held by the US in Iraq.

Completed in 2005, the report found no Australians were involved in the abuse or ill-treatment of detainees. However, it said better communication was
needed within the Australian Defence Force on Australia's obligations towards Iraqi detainees. It also noted that investigators did not have access to key
personnel or information to provide an overall picture of Australia's knowledge of detainee abuse in Iraq.

The shortcomings of this report soon became clear. In 2013, the Public Interest and Advocacy Centre got hold of internal government documents and wrote
reports that showed the Australian Government knew much more about prisoner torture and mistreatment than it was letting on.

In some cases, Australia failed to abide by the Geneva Conventions and did not raise issues of prisoner treatment with the US. In one case, an Australian
military lawyer did not take seriously an International Committee of the Red Cross report that showed evidence of detainee abuse by US personnel in Iraq.

It is not only the Australian Defence Force that has questions to answer, but also Australia's foreign affairs and intelligence agencies.

For example, there is evidence that Australian intelligence agencies knew about the "extraordinary rendition" of Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib by the
US.

Habib was detained and questioned in Pakistan by Pakistani and Australian officials in 2001. He was then handed over to the US who sent him to Egypt. There,
Habib was allegedly subjected to beatings, electric torture and water torture.

In a Four Corners investigation into Habib's rendition, a former CIA official involved in "extraordinary renditions", Michael Scheuer, said, "It would seem
to me very unlikely given the close relationship between us and the Australians that they would not have been informed [about Habib's rendition]".

A 2011 investigation by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security found that no Australian official was complicit in Habib's ill-treatment. However,
the Inspector General criticised Australian officials for not properly following up on Habib's welfare and for not strongly protesting Habib's transfer to
Egypt.

The need for an Australian torture report

Australia's previous investigations failed to get to the bottom of what Australian defence and intelligence agencies knew about US torture.

Torture is absolutely prohibited under international law. Australia cannot engage in torture or be complicit in the torture of others. Yet, it remains unclear
if Australia's current policies against torture are working or whether Australia has been complicit in torture since the "war on terror" began.

This is concerning because Australia works with countries known to use torture, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Philippines. If poor safeguards against
torture are in place, it could expose the risk of Australian officials being complicit in torture. It would also undermine Australia's legal and moral obligations
to prevent torture.

As a liberal democracy, Australia must embody the values of accountability and respect for human dignity, and follow the example of its allies, such as Britain
and Canada, and produce its own torture report.

The Inspector General's report also did not explore an aspect of Habib's account, supported by an Egyptian official, that an Australian named "George" was
present during Habib's torture in Egypt, leaving unanswered questions about the exact role Australia played in his "extraordinary rendition".

Leon Panetta was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, more commonly known as the CIA, for the duration of February 13,
2009 through until June 30, 2011.

At the time he was appointed Director by then President Barack Obama, there was expressions of concern over Panetta's lack of
experience in the field of intelligence. The only noted experience was two years in limited intelligence as a military officer in
the 1960s.

Some inside the US political scene at the time argued it was Panetta's lack of intelligence experience, especially with the CIA,
which made him a good candidate for the role. Others continued to oppose. Despite some reservations and conflict, Panetta was
confirmed the appointment on February 12, 2009, by the Senate and sworn in one week later, on February 19.

During the tenure of Panetta's appointment inside the CIA, he authorized a secret internal review of the agency's role in the
torture of suspected terrorist detainees, during the George W. Bush administration.

Torture, disguised under the official legislative term of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques".

Following the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks of 9/11, George W. Bush launched a massive campaign like the US had never seen and
one which would change the world's perception of terrorism and bring on the generational media buzz term of the "War on Terror".
The media, especially those inside the US, grabbed hold of the buzz term and exploited it to maximum commercial effect.

In 2018, the world's media are still attempting to force the "War on Terror" facade in our faces at every opportunity. However, it
now has much less effect than what it did in the early to mid 2000s when the visual images of passenger airliners flying into the
WTC towers was still fresh in people's minds.

There was lots of controversy surrounding the politics and reaction by the Bush administration, following the 9/11 attacks. Controversy
which is completely justified by questions that still remain unanswered to this day. But we understand one definitive event that did
occur - the torture of suspected terrorists being detained at Guantanamo Bay between 2001-2006.

It was not until 2006 that Bush publicly admitted that the CIA had been using secret prisons, known as "Black Sites" to detain suspected
terrorists prior to being transferred to Guantanamo Bay. It is now understood that Bush had ordered the directive which permitted the
CIA to detain and secretly interrogate detainees at these secret black sites and permitting them to use the new Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques.

Quality Publishing Works understands through research provided to us by the Council Body of Research and Study, that nine CIA black sites
existed. It is unclear how many still secretly exist today and remain under the control of the CIA. It is also understood from documents
shown to us by the Council Body of Research and Study that President Donald Trump is in the process of reviewing and drafting an Executive
Order that could see the reinstatement of secret CIA black sites and some form of extreme interrogation processes, by the CIA. This,
combined with the appointment of new CIA Director, Gina Haspel, who was Chief of Base for a CIA black site located in Thailand, is a cause
for extreme concern that a Trump administration may be returning the CIA to the dark torturous era of the Bush administration.

Precise and accurate details are difficult to verify of just how much knowledge or involvement Haspel played in the operations of black site
she was Chief. The Thailand located black site is where the suspected al Qaeda terrorists Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah were
detained and tortured, using the enhanced interrogation techniques. US Officials claim that Haspel did not become Chief of the site until
after Zubaydah was tortured.

Haspel also played a limited role in the destruction of CIA interrogation videos that were reported to have footage that demonstrated the
enhanced interrogation methods. A recent released (redacted) document aims to draw proof that Haspel was not held directly accountable for
the destruction of the videos and her involvement of the videos destruction was limited.

Terror suspects were being detained at black sites in various secret locations around the world and operated under complete secrecy by the
CIA with the knowledge of and by order of the Bush administration. Detainees were never put to any kind of military or legal trial or offered
any avenue to prove their innocence. Instead, they were interrogated and tortured, which was shrouded under the term "Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques" in an effort to persuade critics that it was not torture and the CIA's means of interrogation were justifiable and legal. They
were not.

It was confirmed by the release in December 2014 of what was to be referred to as "The Torture Report", officially titled "Committee Study of
the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program", that these so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" used were in
fact regarded as torture.

The Report that was released to the public was scathing and raw. It painted an ugly picture of the handing of detainees and abuse of power of
the CIA, under the direction of George W. Bush. Countless associates were also closely linked to being the architects of and having direct
knowledge of the development of the enhanced interrogation program, including the Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld. Albeit, they were not the subject of The Torture Report. There was suspicion that the CIA was carrying out torture to some extent
on terror suspects. The details presented in The Torture Report confirmed lots. But it was still hiding many more secrets. Secrets that remain
hidden and classified today.

What was even more disturbing than the interrogation procedures outlined in the report, was the public version of the report that was eventually
released took eight months to get approval for what was to be released as only a small portion of the final report. And the details that were
included in this portion report still remained heavily redacted. To put it into perspective of just how selective The Torture Report that was
released to the public is, it is compiled of just 525 pages. The complete and full report contains more than 6,000 pages. What remains hidden
in the remaining five and a half thousand pages still remains classified.

Effectively, there is a lot of secrets in the final report that still remain secret and kept out of the public domain. Even those in Congress can
not get access to the full report, which remains secretly held by the CIA. The raw details that were included in the version released to the
public were disturbing and difficult to read, in detail. The final and full unredacted report we can only assume is absolutely shocking.

Quality Publishing Works has consistently supported calls for the public release of the full 6,000+ page report. However, four years after the
release of the redacted version released to the public, we are still no closer to getting the final report released - redacted or unredacted.

Legal action has been launched and the release of the full report has been sought, notably by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), but to
date all requests and attempts have been rejected.

During May 2016, it was revealed that CIA had destroyed an electronic copy of the full report, along with the hard disk that it resided. A claim
that the CIA insists was "accidental". Due to the secrecy surrounding the full report, it remains unclear where the full report was/is held and
how secure it remains from the CIA destroying its very existence in an effort to cover up the full details of the torture the agency carried out.
The CIA appears afraid of the reaction shall the full details be revealed.

It would not be the first time that the agency has gone to extreme lengths to cover up its torture. The CIA had possession of the video footage
of their interrogations in 2002 at the black site in Thailand, and most likely other black sites too. If leaked to the public, the videos would
have provided further disturbing proof that the CIA did in fact torture detainees, despite the agency playing down the claims.

The CIA has been in a constant state of denial that their methods of information gathering is torture. Instead, they continue to believe that it
was simply carrying out enhanced interrogation methods.

It has been confirmed inside details of a memo, provided to us by the Council Body of Research and Study, originally sent to the black site in
Thailand by then CIA officer, Jose Rodriguez, that the videos depicting torture were destroyed on November 9, 2005. Interestingly, the names of
the CIA lawyers who authorized the destruction were ommitted from the memo. It is considered normal practice to include lawyers names on such
memos as a means of legal protection of the person making the order. In this case, it would appear no lawyers authorized the destruction of the
videos.

It remains unclear how many videos in total contained footage of CIA torture as the numbers that have been made public are conflicting among media
reports and cannot be verified accurately. But one thing is certain, the CIA went to extreme lengths to destroy the video evidence of its
activities. Knowledge of the videos and their destruction only became public knowledge in December 2007, two years after the destruction order was
given.

Combined with a long and ongoing campaign to call for the release of the full report, our publishing partners, Freedom Publishers Union, has also
been calling for the release of all documents associated with "The Panetta Review".

The Panetta Review was a secret internal review that was conducted by Leon Panetta. The dates surrounding when the review was carried out remain
vague and again, cannot be accurately verified.

It was reported that Panetta ordered the review with the aim of finding out how they ethics of the CIA officers was broken and how they could be
brought into line. The review was never released to the public and to date, also remains classified.

The very existence of The Panetta Review was made public by Senator Mark Udall, on December 17, 2013. Udall claims to have accessed and viewed
portions of The Panetta Review and its details provide consistency with those detailed in The Torture Report which was released by the Intelligence
Committee. However, the Intelligence Committee's report was in conflict with the CIA's official response.

It is long believed that the conclusive and matching findings of The Panetta Review and Intelligence Committee's The Torture Report are in direct
conflict with the official response by the CIA, suggesting this is the reason that The Panetta Review was never released and possibly even suspended
before it was completed. If The Panetta Review was shut down before completion because its final findings were deemed to be contradictory to the CIA's
official response given to the public, then that equates to an internal cover-up by Leon Panetta.

It was claimed by the CIA that the Intelligence Committee had accessed and taken portions of The Panetta Review from CIA facilities, without the
authorization of the agency. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was Chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, confirmed that the Committee had accessed and
obtained portions of The Panetta Review. She claimed that they were transferred to a secure safe, reportedly inside the Senate's Hart Office Building.
Feinstein maintains that the actions they took were absolutely required to protect the documents from potential destruction by the CIA, which had already
previously destroyed evidence of torture through the destruction of the black site videos, under the direction of Jose Rodriguez.

The dispute over access to The Panetta Review continued when Feinstein accused the CIA of unlawfully accessing the computer systems of the Intelligence
Committee, in what is believed to be in an attempt to discover how the Committee got access to the documents of The Panetta Review in the first place. It
was also requested by the acting general council of the CIA, that the FBI launch an investigation into the actions of the Intelligence Committee. There is
no confirmation that any investigation actually took place by the FBI. It was identified later on that the acting general council for the CIA was Robert
Eatinger. Interestingly, Eatinger was also later confirmed as one of the lawyers that authorized the destruction of the CIA torture videos, but who's name
was omitted from the memo.

The entire saga even grabbed the attention of former NSA Contractor turned mass-surveillance whistleblower, Edward Snowden. He claimed that it was obvious
that the FBI was playing a game of "keep away" from The Panetta Review. However, Snowden's position on the matter appears neutral when he extended his
observations to Feinstein's behavior and stated her hypocrisy when complaints were made of CIA spying on the Intelligence Committee, when Feinstein is
supporting the global mass-surveillance networks primary led by the NSA.

Everything appeared to come to a screaming halt in the month of July 2014 when the Justice Department confirmed it would not pursue legal action against the
CIA for its hacking into the Intelligence Committee's computer system. The actual hacking was confirmed by the CIA in the same month. A claim that it had
previously denied up until that time.

In December 2014, Senator Udall continued his pursuit for the release of The Panetta Review. He continued to denounce the torture program of the former Bush
administration and also criticized the Obama administration on its actions that were effectively protecting the CIA of its past activities.

Udall declared The Panetta Review to be "a smoking gun". He directly the accused the CIA of lying by saying, "One disturbing finding," is "the CIA are
continuing to willfully provide inaccurate information and misrepresent the efficacy of torture. In other words, the CIA is lying.".

In what appears to be the most revealing details of just what is inside The Panetta Review, Udall says, "The Panetta Review found that the CIA repeatedly
provided inaccurate information to the Congress, the President and the public on the efficacy of its coercive techniques.". Furthermore, the CIA "continues to
insist the CIA's interrogations produced unique intelligence to save lives, yet The Panetta Review identifies dozens of documents that include inaccurate
information used to justify the use of torture and indicates that the inaccuracies it identifies do not represent an exhaustive list. The Panetta Review further
describes how detainees provided intelligence prior to the use of torture against them. It describes how the CIA, contrary to its own representations, often
tortured detainees before trying an other approach. It describes how the CIA tortured detainees even when less coercive methods were yielding intelligence. The
Panetta Review further identified cases in which the CIA used coercive techniques when it had no basis for determining whether a detainee had critical
intelligence at all. In other words, CIA personnel tortured detainees to confirm they didn't have intelligence, not because they thought they did.".

Senator Udall was defeated in the election that followed this speech.

The revelations by Udall were scathing and confirmed that the interest and motivation to have The Panetta Review released to the public, should remain a
priority.

As late as January 2018, Investigative Reporter, Joshua Eaton from ThinkProgress, received access to a small set of emails. The email set which also included a
legal declaration from the Chief of the Litigation Support Unit of the CIA, Martha M. Lutz. The emails which have also been viewed by the Council Body of Research
and Study and relevant details provided to Quality Publishing Works, include a letter sent to the President of the United States at the time, Barack Obama. In the
letter, Senator Udall states his reasons for the request to have The Panetta Review released. Udall argues that its release was crucial to understanding the
accuracy of the torture details in their entirety. From learning from the details, Udall says future decisions on policy can be developed to ensure that this kind
of unacceptable behavior from the CIA is never repeated again from any US administration. He also presses the President to ensure the CIA complies with any requests
made to have The Panetta Review shared with the Committee and to declassify The Torture Report and release the entire full report, in redacted form if necessary.

In follow up emails, it becomes clear that the CIA Director at the time, John Brennan, had no intention of releasing any information, details or documents related
to any internal review of the enhanced interrogation program - The Panetta Review. Brennan argues that the material that make up the internal review were incomplete
and are made up of a series of drafts that still required heavy editing.

In the declaration by Martha M. Lutz, there is better clarification made as to the official legal position and reasoning of why The Panetta Review has not been
released. The declaration also makes it clear that the CIA never has any intention of ever releasing the material, which they again argue remains nothing more than a
set of incomplete drafts that do not provide any further relevant details necessary to be released. Instead, the declaration makes it clear of the intended continuation
of secrecy surrounding the CIA's operations and attempts to justify their necessity of operating in complete secrecy.

Lutz also claims that the "documents remain in draft form, were never completed, and were not presented as final products to the Director or other senior CIA leaders".
In an attempt to stop any further enquiries into a potential release of The Panetta Review, Lutz's claims somewhat echo that of Brennan, stating that the internal
review was suspended and no documents beyond the drafts were produced. Lutz claims in the declaration that it was determined that continuing with the internal review
might complicate any Department of Justice investigation. This alone is a very interesting comment which appears to be overlooked, as no investigation even took place.
Perhaps Lutz was exercising her sense of duty to continue the trend of diverting attention away from The Panetta Review.

One can not ignore the sense of urgency which can be determined from the tone of the language used by Senator Udall, at the time. After having partially viewed portions
of The Panetta Review, he said "I will tell you that the review is much more than a 'summary' and 'incomplete drafts', which is the way Mr. Brennan and former CIA
officials have characterized it in order to minimize its significance". Udall makes the bold statement, "I have reviewed this document, and it is as significant and
relevant as it gets.".

Almost five years on from the public learning of the existence of The Panetta Review, the sense of urgency remains the same. The calls to have the review released are
still active. Those who make the call have an equal sense of urgency and worry that some day, the CIA will 'conveniently' destroy The Panetta Review, along with the
full complete version of The Torture Report which includes over 6,000 pages of details which are almost certainly guaranteed to scar the US Government, the Bush
administration era and the CIA for many years to come.

Still, the longer the CIA denies, lies and hides from the issue of torture, the louder the calls for increased transparency become.

When asked if the CIA would place on the public record their response to claims that The Panetta Review contradicts the official public response given by CIA
representatives and that is the reason it was never released, the CIA falls silent and refused to comment. Instead, they keep The Panetta Review locked away, barring
all access by Congress and the public.

Former Senator Mark Udall may no longer be a Senator, but sources close to him state that his position on the matter has not changed and he still calls for the release
of The Panetta Review.

Despite repeated claims from George W. Bush, former CIA Directors and Leon Panetta himself that the use of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" were crucial to extract
valuable source information from detainees, on terrorists and potential future attacks, these claims have been proven to be wrong and documentative evidence has been
produced as proof. Including revelations from the FBI and other sources that the crucial information that was received was not provided as a result of torture of the
detainee. Instead, the crucial information was provided before torture techniques were initiated.

This is also confirmed in the opening pages of the Senate's report, under "Finding and Conclusions". The report concluded, "The Committee finds, based on a review of
CIA interrogation records, that the use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee
cooperation.". Effectively, when accurate information was received it was "prior to, or without having been subjected to these techniques.". And, "Detainees provided
fabricated information on critical intelligence issues, including the terrorist threats which the CIA identified as its highest priorities.". Crucially, the report found
that "CIA officers regularly called into question whether the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques were effective, assessing that the use of the techniques failed to
elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate intelligence.".

These key findings have consistently been disputed and rejected by CIA Directors and representatives, who still believe that their harsh techniques worked and were
completely acceptable and legal.

The CIA is an agency in disgrace. They know it. It is this very reason that they continue to deny and fight so hard to keep their secrets in the dark, in effort to hide
their illegal and disgraceful actions of torture at the hands of the former Bush administration.

Quality Publishing Works will continue to support the call for the release of the complete The Torture Report and The Panetta Review and will not be satisfied until all
associated documents are placed in the public domain - in redacted form if necessary.

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavic Press

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] July 24, 2018 |
USA and Australia. Russia and China - How Does Trump Deal With Such Complex and Problematic International Relations?

There is a problem with today's mainstream press - Regardless of the political persuasion, all of them want to report a controversy.
Consequently, whatever President Donald Trump does, there is some part of the press that sees a controversy in the action and stops
the story at that point. What they do not explore is the result of the action that Trump has taken. That result may actually be a
positive change.

So far, the meeting with North Korea has produced real action in a sense that it has made the North approachable, which was the result
actually needed before any other potential outcome could follow. It is now far too late to put the nuclear weapons genie back in its
bottle. North Korea needed to be invaded and occupied the first time sanctions failed for any possibility of controlling the nation's
nuclear weapons program. Instead, we saw the world toying around with the United Nations (UN) for two decades and now it's too late.
Western countries have only focused on their needs, with the consequence of losing the third or fourth largest economy overnight. And
that was the sword the Kim family held ever since the Korean War.

Trump, being a transactional negotiator, recognized that things weren't going back to the 1980s anymore. The best we could hope for is
to draw a line under the past and move forward, bring the North into world trade, where the free market would end the Kim dynasty just
as it ended Russia and China.

Now Trump is doing the same thing with 'the Soviet Union' - which is how most politicians in the US view Russia, even today. He sees
them as a corrupt country that needs an autocrat to keep it from breaking apart further. He sees the Crimean invasion and subsequent
actions in the context of Russia taking advantage of the lack of response and action from the rest of the world to look after its needs.
Perhaps that might be over-reach. But the time to deal with it came and went before the UN could even hold a meeting, which probably
would have resulted in nothing more than vague discussion leading to no results.

When events get ahead of responses, all leaders can realistically do is condemn the action and move on. This notion is widely accepted
in politics as a legitimate response, but not with the public and most certainly not with the press. The Europeans certainly did that,
because they need energy from Russia more than they need an embargo or a war on their borders with the very real potential to flow into
their pride land. Besides, Russia is a country that really should be an ally. We share a lot of heritage in our people and they are
another technology leader that can, if we get the political diplomacy right, help balance China with Europe. So Trump does the
transactional act - skip over the bad behavior and go straight to a stand-up normalization of relations.

If Russia meddled in US elections, which the many substantive reports that have been released and published here on Freedom Publishers
Union suggest they did, well, it's too late to act on it now. We need to move on. But we must also take the notion of Russian election
meddling serious and ensure the right precautions are put in place for future elections to prevent foreign interference from any nation
seeking to undermine American democracy.

Australia is taking action in this area by recently introducing legislation which aims to prevent foreign interference of its delicate
democracy. However, there is much caution around the legislation. The NY Times says, "The new laws are similar to but more far-reaching
than those passed in Britain and the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They prioritize an approach favored by
security officials and give great discretion to the Australian Attorney General, with limited checks and balances.". Freedom Publishers
Union has also expressed concern over the legislation, focusing on the potential effects it may have on journalism, publishers and the
free press. Whilst the legislation has been amended somewhat from the original draft, Freedom Publishers Union maintains the position
that the changes do not go far enough. As pointed out, again by the NY Times, "Journalists accused of violating the restrictions on
sharing government information can also now claim a "public interest" defense, arguing that the information they disclose has value for
democracy.". However, it remains unclear as to how effective a "public interest" claim would be in a court of law. Especially in a
hypothetical case where secret government information may have been published which embarrasses the government and exposes unethical (and
most likely illegal) behavior. Journalists would explicitly deem this to be in the public's interest. But this may not be the view of the
country's Attorney General which would undoubtedly act to initiate legal proceedings with a firm view to prosecute the journalist,
publisher and their source(s). The balance is all wrong. The NY Times concludes by saying, "Beyond journalists and secrecy, though, the
laws have few exceptions.".

Putting focus on a specific country, the Australian example of foreign interference laws are largely believed to be focusing on China.
Although the text of the legislation does not specifically mention China, understandably. It has long been suspected that Australia has
been the target of Chinese attempts to undermine its democracy. It is unclear whether it is these suspicions which prompted the legislation
to be drafted. China is adamant that it has no intention and never had intention of interfering with Australia's political framework or
democratic values. SBS News reports the Chinese Embassy in Australia as saying Australia is "exhibiting a Cold War mentality".
And directly accused Australian media of "fabricating stories about Chinese Government influence".

The Australian example of its attempts of dealing with the potential for election interference by a foreign power are slightly
contradictory to Australia's lazy attitude towards suspected Chinese interference, in a sense that no investigations or reports have been
released (to the public) which investigate, analyze and assess for any Chinese interference. Freedom Publishers Union is unaware if any
reports even exist. We do not believe so.

Although Australia's attempts at dealing with potential election interference should be commended, Freedom Publishers Union believes that
the Australian Government have just got the complete wrong balance of the law. It attempts to do too much, is far too broad in its scope and
introduces too many new laws for problems that do not exist. Instead, the law itself is the guilty party in creating problems. The Government
claims that although the law could be used for prosecution of journalists and publishers, extending to their sources in some cases, it will
not be used for that purpose. Well Freedom Publishers Union argues that if it has no intention of using the law for this purpose, then why
was such a law introduced in the first place. Let's be blunt here - You do not introduce a law you have no intention of using. That is at
the core of our concern and should act as a wakeup call for America.

So where does this leave the US Government and what are its options for taking precautionary measures to help eliminate the potential for
Russian interference with its elections? Well, it could follow Australia's lead. But it must be extremely careful and must remain focused on
the core problem of election meddling and not broaden the scope too far, which is the biggest mistake made by the Australians.

Despite what appears to be the majority public perception, President Donald Trump is not an idiot. What he sees is a manner of negotiation
that, were real estate to use it, would never get a building constructed and occupied in under a century. People have been asking for decades
why don't we just negotiate our international commitments the way we negotiate other contracts. Well, Trump has responded with a 'let's do it'
mentality.

Speaking generally, Freedom Publishers Union disagrees with much of Trump's actions and statements. And perhaps his methods of governance could
be described as unorthodox and unusual. Using Twitter as a main platform to communicate your message is definitely unusual for such a person
holding arguably the most powerful position in the free world. But bringing diplomacy into the 21st century is definitely worth a try. After
all, we aren't sending diplomatic correspondence back and forth from negotiations via sailing ships anymore. Realistically, a couple of emails,
faxes and conference calls should be able to do what takes months of traditional face-to-face negotiation between nation's representatives.
Unfortunately, it also eliminates about 50% of the State Department and reduces the Secretary of State from one of the most powerful politicians
to simply a department head which resembles that of a loans manager in a financial institution. Given that the State is where the wealthy scions
of America's richest and powerful families end up (the ones not running Wall Street), disrupting the careers of these politically connected
diplomats is not something you do if you want their soft money and back-room dealing. Trump, coming from the 'working class' of business executives,
isn't part of the 'old money elite', and doesn't need their support if he controls the mob in the streets of populism. That's why the he panders
to the white, racist, blue-collar, ignorant masses. As long as he can win the electoral votes on the backs of these constituents, he isn't
beholden to the old power brokers. Which effectively trades one form of corrupt leadership for another.

President Trump's seemingly bat-shit [sic] statements and ongoing stream of reversals on policy position are a tool for keeping everyone off
balance in negotiations. When he starts out daring North Korea to start a nuclear war, he calls their bluff - at which point they will take the
action that saves face and lets them act as though they're being humble and leading to an ultimate path to peace. Which is where Trump wants to
be.

Give them the choice between certain death and a comfortable life and they'll take the life offer every time.

Of course, this strategy only works when the other party decides to act rational. If they decide to go to nuclear war, now you obviously have a
very different problem. So far, President Donald Trump has won these challenges. However, the big kahoona [sic] is the trade war with China. The
expectation is that China will negotiate a settlement rather than lose access to American trade. However, the numbers for the cost of the trade
war are such that China may be able to wait America out, while building leadership in other areas of the world (Africa and South America). This
could actually be a challenge that doesn't work out.

Is Trump crazy and mentally unstable? No. He's using shock and uncertainty to achieve the lesser goals, which were his target all along.

[Filed from MUMBAI] July 22, 2018 | Unverified Reports Ecuador Ready to Hand Over Julian Assange to British Authorities

It is quickly becoming increasingly clear that the Editor of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has lost the support from the host country
that has allowed him to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy, in London.

Assange sought and was granted political asylum by Ecuador and has remained detained to the Embassy by threat of immediate arrest
by British authorities, since 2012.

In the past 24-48 hours, the world's media has begun to report that the Ecuadorian President is close to reaching an agreement (or
perhaps has already reached an agreement) with the British Government to force Assange from the Embassy.

A forced removal, by physical means or a voluntary exit by Assange as a result of any agreement, would ultimately hand him to British
authorities outside the premises.

The media reports are unverified at the time Freedom Publishers Union goes to press. We seek further validation of the facts and we
seek clarification whether Assange or anyone from his legal team has been notified of any further details.

We rely on the story published by Glenn Greenwald through The Intercept, which he cites his anonymous source as someone with ties to
the Embassy where Assange is effectively detained.

Also, Russian media outlet RT also make similar reports which reflect on the same noted facts as published by The Intercept. The
Editor-in-Chief of RT claims her source says that Ecuador is ready to hand over Assange to British authorities within weeks, possibly
days.

Weeks, days? As this is unverified developing news which is yet to be confirmed by anyone with official ties to the ongoing political
stalemate, it is absolutely unclear how things will unfold when (and if) Ecuador does follow through with the reported claims and
forcefully remove Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy.

It must be duly noted that in 2016 his detainment to the Embassy was validated as illegal by the United Nations Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention. Assange has never been charged with a crime.

Freedom Publishers Union has been at the absolute forefront of support for the wider cause of Julian Assange and his publishing
organization, Wikileaks. Our support remains unchanged by these recent developments.

We continue to monitor the situation surrounding the latest, unverified, reports and will release information as we can validate the
facts.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] July 16, 2018 |
America Not Leading by Good Example. Should Australia Follow?

Chinese technology giant Huawei looks more likely to be facing a complete ban from contributing to the construction of Australia's
national 5G network, for what the Government describes as "national security reasons".

The Australians claim they have serious security concerns, backed by their intelligence agencies, that Huawei will use their
technology to collect network data and share it with the Chinese Government.

We must reflect back to a decade or so ago when America was 'bitch-slapped' for Cisco and other US suppliers leaving NSA backdoors
in commercial switches, routers and other networking equipment. While it's difficult to plot the timeline of Cisco's history of NSA
backdoors being planted into their equipment, nobody can ignore the fact that American equipment has been proven to be more susceptible
to government-sponsored security compromises than Chinese equipment - based on evidence released to the public.

In America, there's growing concern towards Huawei too, with the FBI, CIA and NSA all accusing the company of spying on American citizens
through its cell phones. The situation here in America is a mirror image of the Australia-Huawei situation. Raymond Wong from Mashable
says, "If you're Huawei, you'd be upset" [at the spying allegations]. "Especially since there's been no evidence that Huawei's phones are
really spying on anyone.". Wong reiterates on the concerns of lack of evidence against Huawei that Freedom Publishers Union has by stating,
"that's really the issue here. There isn't any hard evidence at this time to back up any claims that Huawei phones are a threat to personal
or national security. It's just a lot of smoke from Washington.". Smoke which now appears to be bellowing from Australia's shores too.

Wong takes another swipe, "Ironically, the only known hacking we know of that's closely related to Huawei wasn't done by the company or the
Chinese Government, but by the NSA. In 2012, it was revealed the NSA had made a program called "Shotgiant" that created backdoors into
Huawei-made networking equipment in order to monitor communications around the world and find ties between the Chinese company and China's
People's Liberation Army.".

Freedom Publishers Union suggests that domestic-made networking equipment is no more secure than Chinese-made equipment. And the American
[and Australian] intelligence agencies aren't doing the citizens any favors by placing backdoors into domestic-made devices. The evidence
we do see is absolutely contradictory to the claims that Chinese networking equipment is not secure and is doing the spying.

The evidence is clear and no evidence has been presented that reverses the security trend.

Any decision made by the Australian Government that results in Chinese technology companies being banned because of any potential security
risk(s) should be largely based on whether there is proof of spyware, backdoors and/or hardware inclusions that compromise network security.
If there is evidence present, then sure, ban them. However, this should be accompanied by honesty with the Australian public from its
intelligence sources who have the evidence. At the moment, all we see is political rhetoric which portrays as nothing more than a formed
political opinion which is increasingly bias against China, rather than evidence based decision making.

This is also noted by communications construction business Transseed, who just last week point out, "Other countries such as the UK, New
Zealand, Canada and Germany are also very wary about using Huawei equipment in their network infrastructure but have enacted stringent
cyber-security checks to ensure there are no backdoors to the Chinese government. Australia has taken a different approach by opting for an
outright ban despite the fact there has never been any public evidence to support the suspicions.".

If, on the other hand, the Chinese spying card is being played as a means to manipulate competition and spook the market interests into
concluding that Chinese technology companies are the evil nemesis, then no, it's not a good idea to ban them.

Australia really needs to put its collective head together and decide if following America's lead remains a good idea. Australia should be a
lot more concerned about pissing off China than America, right now. Given the current and foreseeable direction of American leadership and
policy under President Donald Trump, as another nation [Australia] far from America, decisions should be made on the assumption that American
support is going to either be greatly reduced, or the alliance is going to require expensive confrontation, with everyone on America's
'list'.

Australia is a great little country, with big borders. But it is little compared to the superpowers of the developed world. That isn't bad.
It's simply reality. America is learning quickly that isolationism is going to make the USA quickly fall out from its global leadership role
and probably end up like Britain - a shadow of its once glorious empire, still invited to participate with the 'big kids' out of respect, but
with no meaningful or effective role.

Or, America could end up as the new North Korea - a political rogue nation and isolated home of a Dr. Evil and his 300,000,000 minions.

As the trade war escalates between America and China, with no finish line within view, it's worth looking at a similar scenario to see just why
screwing with international trade relations for political gain doesn't generally have positive domestic outcomes. This latest trade war will not
end well for America. We need to just take a look at Toyota - a company that is getting heavy tariffs for supposed national security reasons in
America. This is having a direct impact on the 138,000 Americans that work in America directly for Toyota, in their factories and dealerships.
Plus, another 100,000 or so Americans that work supporting the Toyota factories and the American companies that are suppliers to Toyota. Toyota
has explicitly stated that "a 25 percent tariff on automobiles would increase the cost of every vehicle sold in the United States.". That is not
good for Americans.

Then, to bigger problems for our nation.

In the past 60-90 days we've seen the United States of America crash through several of the last layers of protections to our democracy. We have
insulted, then injured our closest allies, challenged the legitimacy of nearly every minority in America, effectively banned collective bargaining
and set up the framework to become a single-party state in 2020.

This is the type of bloodless revolution Marx envisioned that would sweep America. Unfortunately, it is sweeping a fascist wave and dictatorship
with strong religious intolerance into what once was the beacon of freedom for the world, all triggered by latent racism even worse than South
Africa.

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] June 28, 2018 | Better Education and Support Needed for Basic Minimum Income, Before Being
Taken Serious

Freedom Publishers Union has referred to on more than one occasion, Basic Minimum Income (BMI) and how the government doesn't
need taxes or banks to implement guaranteed money to everyone in the country. Indeed, it was suggested that during a 10 year phase-in
period, taxes would gradually be eliminated as well as the government providing a consistently larger salary that gradually replaces
pay for work on a dollar-for-dollar basis, if the employer wants to reduce wages by the amount of BMI their employees receive.

The entire idea is based on the fact that money is not something that is real. Rather, money is simply a yard-stick that allows us
to value completely unrelated objects and actions, making it possible for person A to trade their labor for the art of person B
without the need for A to do labor directly for B. The market sets the relative worth of both sides of the transaction. It has to be
decided if the hours of work done is worth the value of the art. And it has to be decided if an offer of payment sufficiently repays
the creative labor.

The value of money as a yard-stick only works if every good or service is measured in the same way - meaning that money needs to be
universally adopted by the entire economy in order to function. This requires government that is universally respected to manage the
amount of money, otherwise anyone could just make up how ever much they wanted, which would eventually make it worthless. The
government regulates money by setting the value via two mechanisms: Purchasing goods and services directly - which establishes a
baseline value. And through regulating the amount of money banks are allowed to possess - which regulates the volume of money that
exists. Banks absorb and release money into the economy with savings and loans. The former absorbing excess money that isn't being
used for transaction, and the latter releasing money for a new transaction.

As long as a majority of goods and services are produced and consumed inside the economy, the amount of money required to allow
everyone to possess anything they want and work the way they want is easily regulated. If things become too expensive (too few things
to buy and not enough money), the government can encourage the production of more things by giving more money to the scarce producers
and would effectively add more money by discouraging savings. If the opposite happens, the government can encourage savings and make
loans harder to get.

What is the reason for all this? Although we believe this based on loose empirical understanding of economics, we haven't found
many big name economists that support the BMI concept. We need more economists and advocates for BMI to get financial institutions,
corporations and politicians to understand and support the concept. Otherwise, it will all remain just a concept.

What we are seeing with the political developments with the United States of America and North Korea following the historical
summit recently held in Singapore, is the most profound change in politics since the absolution of direct monarchies. It has been
predicted for decades by authors. People have chosen the news they want. It is a consequence of an Orwellian flood of simple,
biased information which has come to dominate public opinion, and thus their political perspectives.

President Donald Trump has made use of Goebbels-style narratives to guide opinions at all levels toward his goals. This resembles
the same method Brexit and the alt-right used to gain dominance in Europe. Trump tells the 'big lie' enough times to displace
'reality' and conventional wisdom. It appears to have worked. However, this is not without merit. Conventional politics is about
saving face, not about solving problems. Trump has addressed politics and diplomacy not as self-aggrandizing (not in the conventional
political sense of leading consensus), but in the sense of transactional solutions to problems.

Transactional negotiation deals with actual solutions to problems by negotiating over a measurable fiscal or practical result, not
ideology. The 'trade war' is about negotiating to fully open trading that has no favorites, even though it sometimes appears one-sided.
Dealing with the North Korean leader is the same thing: rather than argue ideology and morality, instead fix the problem economically,
but with an existential threat to back up the deal. North Korea needs to reenter the developed world through interaction first. Then
between solving their economy and greater prosperity, for the leader and Koreans in general, the rest of the bad behaviors will
gradually just go away. China has done it. Russia has done it too. North Korea now wants to do the same thing. Trump just opened the
door to enable this to happen. Support from China and Russia makes this a very likely outcome which would not be achieved outside of a
war by conventional diplomacy.

This approach does have risks. Trump can force transactional negotiations by threatening to do something crazy and destabilizing -
which usually works - because he's demonstrated he'll actually do crazy and unexpected things. Often to the surprise of his allies and
even his closest advisors. But if someone calls his bluff, he either carries out his threat of nuclear war or caves and is never, ever
able to con the world again. That's the biggest fear. There is the very real possibility a leader like Canadian Prime Minister, Justin
Trudeau actually tells Trump to 'go to hell', and when Canada survives retaliation, every other country follows suit. That will trigger
economic instability in America, and sets up the conditions for a real dictator (or religious zealot) to dissolve the US Constitution
and create 'a new Russia'.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

[Filed from MUMBAI] June 22, 2018 | Australian Government Attempts to Censor Murray-Darling Basin Authority Staff
from Contributing to Royal Commission

There is an increased effort of what appears to be government sponsored attempts at censorship and a shut down of transparency,
through efforts to thwart all possibility of transparency by taking questionable legal steps to stop staff members of the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) from speaking with, disclosing any information and/or providing documents to the Royal
Commission on the Murray-Darling Basin, South Australia, which was initiated on January 23, 2018. The hearing commenced on Monday,
this week.

The Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin was established to examine the effectiveness of the Basin system and to
investigate of any evidence of misconduct in accordance to the Water Act 2007 and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The Commonwealth Government, under the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia, has been critiqued for its lack of action
taken leading up to the Royal Commission, despite allegations of upstream water theft. The Commonwealth Government has been accused
of turning the other way and ignoring concerns that have been raised specifically to water theft allegations and possible misconduct
of the MDBA.

We are very concerned of the actions and lengths that the Commonwealth Government are going to, to keep the MDBA quiet and
disassociate them from the Royal Commission. The attempts that are being made to protect the MDBA from contributing to the
investigation which is currently taking place, are concerning and can be described as very aggressive.

Freedom Publishers Union is concerned that there may be something of substance worth investigating with the activities of certain
individuals within the MDBA. Yet, if the Commonwealth Government successfully censors the staff members of the MDBA, then there is no
immediate avenue for any possible exposure of those activities. If the Commonwealth Government is confident they have no knowledge of
any misconduct, then it should have no problem allowing staff members to share any knowledge that may be required of them, to the
Royal Commission.

We find it alarming that the Commonwealth Government has the nerve to stand up and censor staff, disallow information from
operations of the MDBA from being shared with the Royal Commission and ban all documents from being presented. All this is the reaction
of a guilty party with something to hide, giving justification to any logical conclusion being drawn to conclude that there is
something legitimate to hide which requires legal action to ensure it remains hidden from becoming public knowledge.

We condemn the Australian Government for its lack of transparency. We commend the South Australian Government for their
establishment and dedication to ensuring the Royal Commission is carried out to the best of their ability. Despite legal action being
launched from the Commonwealth Government, which is yet to be approved by the courts, it has the legal baring of its intention. However,
the Commonwealth Government has still ordered all staff of the MDBA to ignore any requests for assistance they receive, to contribute to
the Royal Commission, while reminding their staff that the South Australian Government has no legal standing to compel anyone at the
MDBA to appear before the Royal Commission.

Freedom Publishers Union has a strong presence in Australia and we take a strong political position on three very important matters
that we feel we have a responsibility to be politically engaged. We want to continue ensuring that the Murray-Darling Basin is
protected and managed properly and in accordance to the legislation the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is bound. We believe that the
MDBA is the best agency to be managing the Basin, but their management must also be accompanied by the appropriate amount of transparency
required to maintain public and political confidence. With respect to the MDBA, they may very well have had every intention of allowing
staff to stand before the Royal Commission and may have had every intention to provide documentative evidence to ensure any claims of
misconduct are proven to be false. But the problem here is the Commonwealth Government, who has jumped in the middle and effectively
broken up any potential cooperation before it was allowed to commence.

It raises questions. The spotlight should now be moved off the MDBA, instead to be shone right over the Commonwealth Government who
continues to act in extremely worrying ways which resemble a mild form of authoritarianism through controlling who they believe should
and shouldn't appear at investigations hearings and deciding that there is no requirement for transparency, by blocking all requests
for information to be provided to the Royal Commission.

Freedom Publishers Union is worried that Australia's democracy is eroding. It's not failing. The foundations for one of the most
respected and strongest forms of democracy are still embedded deep into Australia's Parliament and its political structures. Yet the
Government continue to push for censorship, control and ultimate power of its citizens which is gradually, yet consistently, eroding
the civil liberties of Australian citizens and the transparent process of the democracy it supposed to represent.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

[Filed from MUMBAI] June 12, 2018 | Australian Military Again Faces Allegations of Human Rights Abuse and War Crimes, in
Afghanistan. Yet the Secrecy Continues

Freedom Publishers Union commends the investigations published by Fairfax Media and Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) which
purported multiple very serious allegations of systemic abuse of human rights and possible war crimes, in Afghanistan, by the acts of
Australia's elite SAS regiment.

The publications were courageous, especially in light of the increasing possibility of Australian media being stripped of much of its
freedom, with the new Foreign Interference legislation which looks set to pass the Australian Parliament in the coming weeks.

Our Asia/Pacific Press Office in Mumbai published an article on July 18, 2017, which followed earlier details released by
ABC News of "civilian casualties in Afghanistan which includes the lethal shooting of children and unarmed men which have fallen at the
hands of Australian Military involvement.".

At the time of going to press, Freedom Publishers Union was unable to seek clarification that those incidents and the latest incidents
to be revealed by the FairFax Media/ABC joint investigation are related. Largely due to the extreme government secrecy which surrounds
the matters and their internal investigations being kept confidential. However, there is one common point that stands out more than
anything else. One can not miss the explicit point that each time, the country of "Australia" is associated with the allegations.

Back in July 2017, we made three important observations - culture of the elite forces, operations secrecy and narrow oversight. We also
raised the valid question of whether Australia should be reviewing their Rules of Engagement, as further details recently revealed indicate
that the Rules of Engagement have most likely been violated by the Australian soldiers, in Afghanistan. If proven to be correct, then it
would possibly be breaking Australian military law in addition to international law. How precise this area of law is and how effective any
repercussions from a positive determination would actually be, remains unclear.

Furthermore, we noted in our publication in July 2017, that although the incidents detailed in the The Afghan Files published by the ABC
only proceeded up until 2014, we believed at the time that the atrocities and misconduct of Australian soldiers continued beyond 2014. We
were unable to come to any justified conclusion that war crimes had been committed at the hands of Australian soldiers, however it is
increasingly more likely that war crimes have been committed than have not. But without much more transparency from the Australian Government,
this is difficult to conclude with certainty.

On civilian casualties, our July 2017 publication in stated, "what Freedom Publishers Union immediately calls for is civilian casualties
properly acknowledged and respected, through proper documenting of the incidents surrounding their deaths.". And on transparency we stated,
"We need greater transparency and we need to see better public disclosure, whilst allowing independent monitoring groups better access to
limited military data for the purpose of documentation of civilian casualties.".

To avoid the risk of repeating ourselves, we will simply state that the position of Freedom Publishers Union remains firm. We would urge
the Australian Government to act immediately, ensure action is taken and all investigations remain as thorough as possible. Otherwise, the
country may very well face the possibility of retaliation by Afghan citizens, in the form of hatred towards Australian Military personnel
and Australia as a nation - which is quickly becoming known to Afghans not for a country of peace, respect and fairness, but a country which
kills innocent civilians and irresponsibly detains innocent citizens without any justified indication of suspicion of misdoing in their
homeland.

At present, to say the situation is out of control would be an understatement. We need critical action now and the severity and urgency on
this matter can not be ignored by the Australian Government and its Defense Department investigators.

In an article published to The Conversation last week, Tony Walker, a Professor of the School of Communications at La Trobe University,
emphasized on the Coalition's apparent rush to get the controversial Foreign Interference laws legislated through the Australian
Parliament.

The amended draft which has now been presented has helped address to some extent the concerns that Freedom Publishers Union has expressed
over its potential to restrict Australia's free press, through placing much tighter restrictions on what Australian journalists and media can
report and publish. Tony bluntly posed the rhetorical question, "What's the rush?". It's a very good question of which requires a bit more
attention.

Freedom Publishers Union is also concerned that the Australian Government is trying to force the new laws through Parliament as a matter of
purpose to avoid any further debate. Once the amended draft is reintroduced to Parliament and read, there will be debate within the chambers
of Canberra [the country's capital city]. However, there remains concern over just how effective the debating points will be considering that
the latest amendments that have been implemented into the updated draft were worked on bi-partisan. When a democratic system is built around
the foundations of a two-party majority system such as Australia's Liberal/Labor house majority, then you begin to question the effectiveness
of its democracy when bi-partisan laws are drafted and agreed on before any effective debate can proceed. Even if there were just a couple of
ministers on either side of politics which choose to vote against the legislation, combined with the small parties and independents, it is most
likely that any opposition will have little effect to the free passage that the legislation will most likely enjoy anyway.

Freedom Publishers Union still maintains the changes which have been implemented into the amended draft do not go far enough. Despite keen
expression of concern raised by many academics and journalists in the media, the message didn't seem to click with either Liberal or Labor.
Tony points out, "Under the proposed legislation, bodies such as Amnesty International that have been critical of Australian Government policies
may be vulnerable.".

It is becoming increasingly clear that Australia is using the Russian interference allegations (we use the term 'allegations' quite loosely)
in the US Presidential election which saw Donald Trump become the US President, as a means of justification of the immediate necessity that the
legislation is passed before the upcoming by-elections in Australia set to be held in July, which the results will have somewhat great importance
on the Federal Election which will most likely follow in the next 6-12 months. Tony makes the point [that], "No reasonable person would argue
against the need for beefed-up legislation to deal with challenges to democratic processes such as those witnessed during the recent US election.
Russian cyber interference in the US political process is hardly in question, nor attempts by Russian agents of influence to suborn the system.
The question is to what degree?". And at what cost to the continued erosion of Australia's free press? Tony continues by reiterating our previous
point on the concerns over the continued free media that Australia enjoys, which could soon take a turn in a very dark direction. On the original
draft of the legislation, Tony says, "It represented an unreasonable threat to individual liberties and freedom of expression. It was particularly
antagonistic to journalists operating in the security space. Long jail terms for publication of unauthorized security material were
incorporated.". On the amendments Tony continues by saying, "The insertion of a public interest amendment has somewhat alleviated that risk.".

Freedom Publishers Union believes the changes are more a relaxation of the original restrictions. They are still present. In fact this has been
echoed by a [verified] political source who spoke to our Asia/Pacific Press Office on the condition of anonymity, "There are still too many
restrictions present, but they've just been relaxed slightly and most certainly shouldn't be categorized as protections. Not at all.". As Tony makes
clear, concerns have actually began to surface as reality already, after "Fairfax Media's publication overnight of leaked documents dealing with
alleged war crimes by members of the Special Air Service might have fallen foul of such provisions, and may still do so.". So there is already a
festering of fear within the media ranks in Australia, of just where exactly the line gets drawn and just how much is considered public interest
journalism before the Government determines that the line has been crossed. It remains unclear, still.

Tony says, "Most of these recommendations are cosmetic, except those relating to journalistic inquiry. They include the need for security
certifications to be validated before proceedings could be initiated for an espionage or secrecy offense, and a review of the legislation by the
National Security Legislation Monitor after three years.", then continues, "As interested parties digest the provisions of the proposed amendments,
it's likely more objections will be raised".

Well those concerns are already present and not just from Freedom Publishers Union, but also Claire O'Rourke, a representative from Amnesty
International Australia who told The Guardian, "under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill charities like Amnesty [International] that hold
the Australian Government to account on its human rights record could face criminal charges. This is clear government overreach and a cynical exercise
by both sides of politics to shield themselves from the scrutiny of Australian society, including charities.".

Freedom Publishers Union believes more time is needed for scrutiny by all sides of politics and the Australian public. The Coalition is touting the
target of the legislation as a means to halt foreign interference in our democratic processes. Freedom Publishers Union believes there to be an
alternative motive for this legislation. By including such restrictions on journalists and the free press, the government is hoping it will scare
journalists into darkness and stop media from publishing content and information that is critical of the government and its international relations.
Specifically, publications such as those published by our friends at Wikileaks and the mass-surveillance documents revealed by former NSA Contractor,
Edward Snowden.

We urge all Australian journalists, editors, publishers and media entities to stand firm, continue to support Australia's free press and do not
cower to these overzealous unjustified laws. Because once the free press is gone, it will become extremely difficult to perform a 180 degree turn from
the darkness that the country is currently staring at.

May 24, 2018 | Tough New EU Privacy Regulations Could Lead to Better Protections in Australia

Major personal data breaches, such as those that occurred recently at the Commonwealth Bank, Cambridge Analytica and Yahoo, have taught us how
vulnerable our privacy is.

Like the cigarette and alcohol markets, it took a long time to prove that poorly regulated data collection can do us harm. And as with passive
smoking, we now know that data trading can harm those around us as well as ourselves.

Regulators in the European Union are cracking down on the problem with the introduction the new strict General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
from May 25. The hope is that the new rules will shift the balance of power in the market for data away from companies and back to the owners of that
data.

The GDPR applies to companies who trade in the EU or process the data of people in the EU. This includes some of Australia's biggest companies,
such as the Commonwealth Bank and Bunnings Warehouse. Since companies that don't operate in the EU or process the data of people in the EU aren't
required to comply, Australian consumers could soon be facing a two-tier system of privacy protections.

That isn't all bad news. By choosing to deal with companies with better data protection policies, Australian consumers can create pressure for
change in how personal data is handled across the board.

How the GDPR empowers consumers

The GDPR makes it clearer what companies should be doing to protect personal data and empowers consumers like never before. When dealing with
companies operating in the EU, you will now have the right to:

access your own data and any derived or inferred data

rectify errors and challenge decisions based on it, including to object to direct marketing

be forgotten and erased in most situations

move your data more easily, such as when changing insurance companies or banks

object to certain types of data processing and challenge significant decisions based purely on profiling, such as for medical
insurance or loans

compensation.

This final right will lead to another profound improvement in regulation of the market for personal data.

Consumers as a regulating force

As a result of these new rights and powers, consumers themselves can help regulate company behaviour by monitoring how well they comply with GDPR.

In addition to complaining to authorities, such as the Information Commissioner, when consumers encounter breaches they can complain directly to the
company, share stories online and alert fellow users.

This can be powerful - especially when whistleblowers actually work in the industry, as was the case with Cambridge Analytica's Christopher
Wylie.

Companies that don't protect people's personal data will face fines from the regulator of up to 4% of global turnover, or €20 million. In addition,
they could be required to pay compensation directly to consumers who have asked investigating authorities to claim on their behalf.

This potentially means that all those millions of EU citizens who were caught up in the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal could, in the future,
be able to sue Facebook.

From the viewpoint of empowering and motivating consumers to monitor what companies do with their data, this is a momentous change.

A shift in our expectations of data privacy

The way things currently stand, there is an imbalance in the personal data market. Companies take all the profit from our personal data, yet we pay
the price as individuals, or as a society, for privacy breaches.

But as a result of GDPR, we are likely to see expectations of how companies should act begin to shift. This will create pressure for change.

You've probably already been sent notifications from companies asking you to re-consent to their privacy policies. This is because GDPR expects
consent to be more explicit and active - default settings and pre-checked boxes are considered inadequate.

Consumers should also expect companies to make it just as easy to withdraw consent as it is to give it.

Unlike New Zealand, which has strong privacy laws, personal data protections in Australia - and the massive data markets of BRIC countries - are not
considered "adequate", and fall below EU standards.

Consumers should be wary of vested interest arguments, such as Facebook's claim that it just wants to connect people. To use an analogy, that's
comparable to an alcohol manufacturer saying it just wants people to have a good time, without highlighting the potential risks of alcohol use.

If you want these greater rights and protections, now is the perfect time to lobby your Members of Parliament and demand the best available protection
from all the companies you deal with.

April 29 was a day that Australian's became increasingly alarmed when a letter purported to be written by Mike Pezzullo, the Secretary of the
Department of Home Affairs sent to Greg Moriarty, the Defense Secretary, leaked to the media and was published by The Daily Telegraph website.

Admittedly, Freedom Publishers Union was also alarmed at the media report, which if assumed to be legitimate, suggested that the Australian Government
would soon be exploring options which may lead to legislating and making legal domestic spying on Australian citizens.

Currently, Australian intelligence and spy agencies are permitted to spy on citizens in foreign countries through a complex web of intelligence programs
spread across what is known as the 'Five Eyes' nations, which Freedom Publishers Union has detailed previously.

The momentary state of panic which was quickly expressed by privacy advocates and activists was completely justified. Despite Freedom Publishers Union's
initial concern, we held off from publication of any response until all of the facts could be established and verified.

Since the leak of the letter, several representatives from the Coalition Government in Australia have responded and clearly stated and placed on the
public record that the text in the leaked letter was misinterpreted and taken out of context. This is somewhat considered reassurance from the Government
that they have no intention to draft any legislation that would make legal domestic spying on Australian citizens and that they were satisfied that
existing legislation, some of which has already been expanded in scope, was sufficient to meeting the country's national security requirements.

Freedom Publishers Union remains quite relaxed and confident that there is no immediate plan to have legislation drafted which permits and makes legal
domestic spying.

We warn Australian citizens to not be complacent. Remain vigilant and aware that there is always the very real possibility of this kind of speculation
becoming reality - through either side of party politics.

We also warn to remain vigilant about privacy rights and encryption, with the threat of legislation to force implementation of encryption backdoors
still circling overhead like vultures.

Freedom Publishers Union has received indication that the US, UK and Australia are all exploring possible legislative options which will force
technology companies to implement backdoor access to their services, which would result in free access to user's data by governments and intelligence
agencies. However, we must clarify that this is indicative only and cannot be verified at the time we go to press. Ensuring uninterrupted privacy rights
are protected and encryption technology remains free from government forced backdoors is at the forefront of our focus.

The types of proposals we understand the Australian Government is considering would technically be classified as a backdoor. Despite Coalition Government
representatives publicly claiming that backdoor implementation is not what they seek to legislate, surrounding encryption. However, we cite various
Australian and international security experts who consistently claim that the only way to access encrypted services is through an intentionally placed
backdoor with a provided key which allows for free access, often unnoticed by the user but with full co-operation with technology companies who operate
the services. And that is where the Government's plans could face huge set-backs, as any legislation would require the full co-operation with some of the
biggest international technology companies in the world. This could prove difficult and Freedom Publishers Union would urge technology companies to
oppose such invasive proposals which aim to intentionally weaken their security features and encryption standards.

Freedom Publishers Union understands that there is currently no known way to crack tough encryption when its implemented properly. There is still some
encryption technology available to the consumer of which have questionable implementation. However, big technology companies like Facebook, Google and
Apple are increasingly using end-to-end encryption, which is proving to be a problem for intelligence and spy agencies who seek to access such valuable
and private communications data.

We cannot doubt that these services will be the primary focus of such encryption backdoor legislation that may be in development now, or in the
future.

On responding to government pressure, Microsoft is much firmer than it used to be. However we remain skeptical of the security of its consumer operating
system, Windows 10. We have reason to believe that Microsoft would be one of the first technology companies to comply which government request(s) for
access to Windows 10 systems.

As advocates of free and open-source software, Freedom Publishers Union reminds our readers of the security benefits of running a Linux based operating
system as an alternative to proprietary operating systems like Microsoft Windows 10. The Windows operating system will always grab attention when
governments seek technological co-operation with intelligence and spy agencies who seek to exploit them as an effort to spy on users.

Linux based operating systems do not become the focus due to their increased security and open-source nature of the source code.

Freedom Publishers Union urges the Australian Government, and additionally the UK and the US, to back away from pursuit of attempting to implement forced
backdoors. Instead, they must respect the rights to privacy of citizens who utilize encrypted technology.

Freedom Publishers Union has not yet been able to view or access any details of any actual drafted legislation which relates to encrypted technology. We
remain slightly skeptical that any exists at this stage. But we warn Australian citizens, privacy advocates and activists to all remain on guard and be
willing to stand up for your privacy and protection of encryption.

May 14, 2018 | The NSA Has Data Addiction. Mass-Surveillance
Must Stop Now!

Quality Publishing Works is all too familiar of the continued operations of mass-surveillance programs that continue to operate throughout the world,
under the guidance of the world's most powerful government leaders. However, it was to some surprise to learn that North America's lead intelligence
agency, the National Security Agency (NSA), has tripled the amount of cell phone call and message data collected on American citizens since 2016.

A media report published by Reuters, details that the NSA collected 534 million cell phone call and message records of Americans last year. According
to Reuters, the figures were sourced from a report released by the NSA, which is available in the public domain.

Quality Publishing Works finds it extremely concerning that the data collection by the NSA continues under the eyes of American citizens, still without
any effective oversight and without questioning whether the sheer amount of data collected on Americans is actually justifiable.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the former Editor of our media partner Freedom Publishers Union. Chris is no longer the Editor for the publication but has
extensive insight and knowledge into mass-surveillance and government spying programs and has covered the topic for many years. He says, "This is just
one data collecting program initiated and under the control by the NSA. The agency has many programs. Way too many, in fact. The amount of data the
agency collects and stores is frankly mind-boggling.".

The agency continues to run its global networks of mass-surveillance operations. Despite attempts to wind-back and limit intelligence gathering through
different pieces of legislation, most the operations continue only moderately reformed and continue to be almost unchallenged. There is still nowhere
near enough transparency of the precise operations that the NSA and its global intelligence partners are operating, nowhere near enough oversight of the
operations and all efforts and claims that mass-surveillance is not on the same scale as it was before the revelations by former NSA Contractor, Edward
Snowden, are very misleading.

The global intelligence and spy operations continue today, continue to expand and continue to be shrouded in near secrecy without any effective
transparency, regulation or independent oversight.

Quality Publishing Works and our media partners Freedom Publishers Union continue to advocate for improved political policy which implements proper
independent oversight with the power to act when abuse of intelligence and spying power is witnessed. At the moment, it continues to operate without
question and seemingly without anyone to monitor whether or not the amount of data gathered by the NSA and its partners is simply too much and
unjustified.

The White House and Congress continue to deem it necessary and reassure the American people that all intelligence gathering operations are always carried
out to protect American citizens and in the name of national security - an all too typical reason.

We need stronger protections on what data can be collected, how it can be used and how long it is retained. At the moment, Quality Publishing Works
believes that too much private data is collected, is misused and is stored for too long - irrespective of whether the data collected is anonymized and
transformed into metadata.

Governments also like to abuse the term 'metadata' and sway public impression that metadata is basically useless and cannot be used to identify the private
lives and activity of the origins of the data. This is completely false, and the intelligence agencies know they are deliberately misleading the public.
You simply need to ask, if metadata were so useless and invaluable, why would the agencies be collecting it and storing it? It may be true that in its rawest
form, metadata is quite useless, but when it is compared against other existing data the intelligence agencies already have or have direct or indirect access
to through their detailed and expansive internal database search engines, is when metadata is matched and pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle. Therefore, it
makes metadata incredibly useful and to some degree, vitally important to completing the bigger puzzle of a potential data trail.

The NSA has so much data collected, sourced by domestic and international programs, that in May 2014 a new datacenter was built and established in the State
of Utah, USA. The datacenter reportedly cost $1.5billion and under the control of the NSA, used for storage of all forms of communications data collected by
intelligence agencies around the world. This may include cell phone call and message records, emails, internet search records, website visit histories and
many other forms on private data from citizens on the internet, inside America and around the world. The data reach is limitless.

Before the revelations and document leaks from Edward Snowden, representatives from the NSA made claims that the Utah facility would be used for metadata
storage. But these claims were quickly derailed when documents leaked by Snowden proved the existence of the PRISM program, which detailed that the NSA was
sweeping up much more data than simply metadata. Former NSA Technical Director and whistleblower, William Binney, describes the Utah facility as a datacenter
built to store all records and types of domestic data, not only metadata, as claimed by the NSA. Binney also claims that the operations at the Utah facility
include unwarranted data mining.

Quality Publishing Works is unable to source any exact numbers which detail the amount of storage the Utah facility has, but actual blueprints that were
published by Forbes in 2013 before the facility officially opened, backed up by quite broad estimates based on storage technology and square meter measurements
of the facility's floor space suggested that the facility would probably be capable of storing tens of exabytes. Possibly more, if you take into consideration
advances in data storage technology. But as stated, most (if not all) information related to the datacenter, the technology inside and its precise purpose of
operations are all classified and remain secret.

The Founder of Utah-based internet service provider XMission, Pete Ashdown, who was able to go inside the facility when it was being built as part of a tour
with the Utah datacenter Consortium says he became quite suspicious about the activities and purpose of the building. In a January 2016 interview, Ashdown
stated that he was told that the facility had no outside internet connectivity, which led him to conclude that the facility was designed to be a purpose-built
data storage facility and not an actual surveillance operations facility. Ashdown also stated that he believes that facility is used to store as much data as
possible, including data collected without warrant, with the intent of holding on to it in case a warrant is provided to access the stored data.

The debate continues as to whether the NSA's continued mass-surveillance programs and those of their international intelligence and spy partners have
justification to continue. We believe there is too much data being collected. We remain skeptical whether intelligence legislation alone will stop or even
regulate the NSA. It has become apparent by looking at the scale of storage space the Utah datacenter alone is capable of holding, that the NSA has a
mass-surveillance disease which must be stopped.

Quality Publishing Works renews our call for the unwarranted dragnet surveillance of innocent civilians to stop, restore civilian confidence in the intelligence
agencies and to take action and implement true reform which restores meaningful operations which go towards protection and security of citizens accompanied by
effective oversight bodies with actual power to act, independent of governmental and intelligence agency interference. Instead, we see a continuation down the
path of creating a society which is quickly becoming 'Orwellian'. Or, we might possibly be there already and at the point of no return.

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavic Press

As we go to press, Facebook Co-Founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, was busy facing questions from Congress. Information and views that have been expressed
by media outlets as a result of the Congressional hearing have not been included in this Editorial due to editing and time constraints.

The Hollywood film "The Social Network" was primarily responsible for tarnishing the public perception of Mark Zuckerberg. The movie may have been
released back in 2010, but the rather deceptive and sneaky portrayal of the Co-Founder of Facebook stuck in the minds of those who watched the film.

Facebook is the greatest public forum in digital history. Until 'bullying' started to grab all the attention as a problem as the result of social media,
Facebook was the embodiment of 'free speech'. The platform allowed anyone to say anything to anybody that cared to listen. It didn't take long for people
to start getting their news, opinions and most importantly, their advertising from Facebook. The platform would mature to become a major challenge to
traditional journalism and media.

We must accept that Facebook is not under attack for being a forum for free speech. That's not really important and users don't really think twice about
it. Nor do they really care about the abuse of the Cambridge Analytica data. Facebook carries out this type of research all the time - internally and with
third-parties. It's how real-world testing is performed and how they determine how people react.

When Facebook revealed to the public some of its research data and statistics, privacy critics expressed great concern about the mining of user's personal
data for research purposes, despite the data being rendered anonymous prior to application. Also, the targeted Trump ads from alleged Russian hackers, or
more likely PR consultants, don't bother with the other media. Duping the public through editorial bias was not a concept constructed by Fox News or CNN.
It has a much longer history. Duping people with social media is as old as politics - whispering campaigns are still in trend as the place to drop a
bombshell on an affair or business deal. Facebook is under attack by old model business and politicians. The former, because they're losing revenue as a
result of Facebook's gradual move into news media. The latter because their people didn't think of it first.

The furor of the Cambridge Analytica revelation is a culmination of the constant barrage of attacks the media throws at Trump. Because Trump doesn't care
too much about the media reporting on him - this is obvious as he prefers Twitter rhetoric over the traditional formal press conference - traditional
media has become even more irrelevant than they already were. Traditional and mainstream media started the campaign against Donald Trump, not because
they're all Communists, but because of the impact he was having on core reporting and analysis. It helps that the man is terribly inarticulate. But so is
the core demographic that supports him. White, rural, poor, deeply Christian, under educated, and because of their poverty, it puts them right on the edge
of starvation and very frightened of anything they don't understand. Trump speaks to them in their language.

Mainstream media either held back the Cambridge Analytica story until they found an appropriate spiraling news cycle was found to dump it into - and tar
Facebook and Trump - or they are incredibly ignorant and slothful. Sources close to Freedom Publishers Union discovered relevant information associated
with this story months before mainstream media decided to act. By revealing all of the information now, media can suddenly become relevant again, tie
Facebook to a reviled politician and pretty much torpedo the social media campaigns starting now, for the November Congressional elections.

Facebook has become the first - and probably the last - universal free speech forum in the world. It allows Nazis, Islamism, Christians, spies and even
some other questionable propaganda to co-exist in the one platform. However, the amount of content restrictions being placed on the platform is increasing
all the time and this is causing the platform to gradually become one giant mechanism for censorship. But if you ignore the content and the message that
any of these groups or organizations is spreading on the platform and take notice of the the fact that all these voices are allowed to co-exist on the same
platform, means that speech is truly free. That is the key to freedom - transparent communication. If you don't like something you see, the mechanisms are
in place for you to block it.

Collectively, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and even Telegram, with the hidden assistance of those in the underground working with Tor Browser and other
anonymous and privacy technology were all key players in the various revolutions that were attempted in the past several years - commonly referred to as
the Arab Spring. It was social media that was able to ignore censorship and continue to broadcast the messages. The bad news though is while the world was
busy being thrilled by the Arab Spring - which to be honest only had limited political success - when the same thing is unleashed on Western nations, it
doesn't feel so good.

Facebook and other online gateways sell information to advertising clients. It is this kind of data profiling and sales that have been commonplace since
the 1950 onward. Nielsen ratings tell advertisers who is watching what programs on television by profiling down to the city block. Newspapers do this too
with changing insert sections for different neighborhoods. But until recently, Facebook had remained 'clean'. They sold you placements based on several
thousand characteristics that an advertiser could specify. Facebook didn't give the advertiser names or addresses. That was up to the customer to provide
in a follow-up.

It does appears that Facebook failed to do that in the Cambridge Analytica case. As a result, through the media driving this story at full steam ahead,
Facebook has lost the trust of some of its users. Unlike most privacy concerns, this is not the end of users complaining. It's the press - and now we
understand what their underlying motivation is.

The American press [among others] are continuing to attack Zuckerberg, demanding he 'do something' to 'fix it'. And now they're looking at Google for
allowing this to happen. "Apple doesn't do this" is now becoming a cry from the press, forgetting [conveniently] that only a year or so ago, they were
complaining of Apple gathering information about their customers, like income, location etc. because Apple would only show advertising to people it
deemed 'rich enough' for their products.

Journalists have a lot of power to guide the thoughts of Americans. The press has been heralded as acting as the conscience of Americans, ensuring that
the rich and powerful are exposed and brought to justice. Yet news media and journalists aren't elected, or even appointed. They are brought and sold like
sports teams by the very rich and powerful they were meant to oversee. Over the last 50 years the press has become consolidated into mega corporations,
often owned by the communications conglomerates that regulation is meant to control.

The Facebook privacy violation isn't something that most people expected. However, industry specific people absolutely expected exactly this. It's worth
noting that this is hinted at in the beginning of The Social Network film, which is a portrayal of the beginnings of Facebook and college life of Mark
Zuckerberg.

It is now widely accepted that most citizens are simply too ignorant to review the Terms and Conditions agreement prompt, or to check the type of data
collection that each app performs prior to installing. This can be used as an excuse that journalists raise to a virtue that renders the customers and
users as 'victims' when the data is used to manipulate them. It is explicitly outlined in the Terms and Conditions that the customer must accept to.
Hence why we will take the opportunity to defend Facebook and state that it has not done anything legally wrong. Indeed, it is important to note that
most of these documents place the agreement button below the contract which is to ensure that the customer must scroll through the actual text before
they agree. If anyone is to play the blame game - the user should be the recipient of any truthful blame.

But almost everyone, other than those with genuine legal or privacy concern, ignores the content of the text and scrolls past it all then clicks "Agree",
while having a false sense of security in knowing that if they think they were duped they can appeal to media and 'expose' what they cry out to be a crime
and portray themselves as the poor victim. Instead of explaining these contracts to people, assisting them to make sense of what to look for among the
often complex legal jargon and what it means for them if they accept the terms, the media instead guides the public with fear about someone or some
company stealing their information and using it to brainwash them into purchases or political thoughts. Loaded words surround these stories: [we quote]
breach, attack, hack, theft (of your private data). This gives the public the impression that what has occurred is actually a crime and the customer is
the helpless victim.

Separate from social media - in reality, most people have no idea what information they have explicitly volunteered to corporations and complete
strangers in the course of their daily lives. We buy something at a store and are asked for our phone number, post code or email address, totally
ignorant to the fact that this basic piece of information is as positive as your ID or DNA. That, combined with a credit card purchase, unlocks your
financial and legal history. It doesn't matter if you refuse or give false information, because at some point you will divulge that information to someone
and it will enter the wild. Some media reports are noting this point, whilst others are ignoring it and frame Facebook as the first company to have
harvested data from its users. Your information is out there already and there's no stopping it. And if you believe you will have any kind of success in
controlling or deleting your data from the world wide web, then it's ignorance at the highest level on your part. This fact also renders the entire
#DeleteFacebook campaign useless, as if you go ahead and deactivate or delete your Facebook account right now, it will have absolutely no effect on the
problem of your data already being out there and being traded by data brokers.

The real problem isn't the collection of data. We must all give up information as a simple requirement to exist in today's modern society. The underlying
problem is people not understanding what you give up and how it is legitimately and illegitimately being used.

The whole Facebook/Trump news cycle will hit a dead end. Freedom Publishers Union do not believe that any laws have actually been broken by Facebook. You
legitimately agree to share your information and data to anyone on Facebook and there is nothing illegal about doing a better job of messaging the voters
than the other guy. Even telling straight up lies is not illegal. Whether we see improvements in the area of data handling through incoming data regulation
or other legislative data control mechanisms, it is now up to the voter to decide who will do the best job of representing them. If they prefer lies to
verified truth, it's in their hands through their vote. Though, as we have learned from Congress probing Zuckerberg on the matter, he actually supports
implementation of stronger data regulation. The EU has much tighter controls over data regulation. It seems now is the time that the US follow suit.

What is the net result for privacy? We have none. We have had none for decades. The only difference between now and 1960 is today we have finer
granularity in the data. We didn't have the internet back in 1960, so the best we could do was breakdown by demographic, location, income and a few dozen
psychological characteristics. Pretty much the same as today, except today the ads are delivered personally, not through TV or the newspapers. But we are
more diverse today than in 1960. People were much more segregated then, not just by color, but by economics, religion, job and school. Today, we intermix
pretty much everything and give it a fancy name called multiculturalism to make it politically acceptable. Some geographic and class divisions still exist.
And they always will. But you find we now have fewer geographies of only white Catholics, Jews or Baptists. Messages are more targeted to individual
characteristics, even if they're delivered by mass media. Radio and TV can provide good demographic separation by changing the message slightly in each ad,
targeting multiple audiences.

Facebook has been cast as the villain in this story, because you need a villain in the news and people are sick of hearing about Trump. Mainstream media
will never, ever blame their audience for being ignorant. Indeed, they count on their audience to be easy, coheres into sales, for advertisers and the
studio's benefit.

March 8, 2018, Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
(CPTPP or TPP-11) was signed by the respective nation's trade ministers in Santiago, Chile. It was then brought back to Australia and tabled in the
country's Federal Parliament on March 26, 2018.

There is still the inevitable administrative steps that must be followed with the CPTPP before it gets through both Houses of Australia's Parliament and
is ratified. It will be reviewed by Australia's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) and public comment from interested parties and
organizations have been invited to make submissions on the CPTPP by April 20, 2018.

Freedom Publishers Union will make a brief Submission.

The United States of America controversially pulled out from the deal, a move supported by Freedom Publishers Union. The countries that remain part of
the reformed CPTPP deal are (in alphabetical order) Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and
Vietnam.

Following the signing of the trade deal in Chile, procedures for the CPTPP to progress into the relative final stages and actually come into effect must
now proceed through the political processes required for ratification, by all nations.

Our position on the CPTPP remains unchanged and we will continue to press and advocate for better political outcomes on the issues associated with the
trade deal, that are of most concern and of which Freedom Publishers Union has publicly expressed before.

We remain extremely disappointed of the conditions of secrecy of which the trade deal was negotiated, allowing it to reach the stage of signing. The
entire process from the very beginning has been shrouded in complete secrecy with no transparency from the countries involved. The only way the public has
learned of the details inside the trade deal is through leaks of the draft documents from Wikileaks and other independent media organizations - when
the trade deal was referred to as simply the TPP.

January 26, 2018, Freedom Publishers Union made a public call for the reformed text of the CPTPP to be released. It was released in the public
domain on February 21, 2018, and is now available for access on Freedom Publishers Union.

Politically, we intend to continue to challenge the details in the CPTPP trade pact on the issues of:

Most Americans use the internet for entertainment purposes. By most, we mean a majority. But we cannot forget the minority. With recent changes to the
rules surrounding net neutrality, the majority of Americans will actually find their internet services may be improved, which will see more internet
bandwidth priority put towards entertainment services, including Netflix and YouTube along with any pre-packaged services.

Freedom Publishers Union still has many concerns on the rule changes which could still impede on actual net neutrality principles. But the real problem
is bandwidth availability.

In the United States of America, this has somewhat been helped along by Amazon, Google, Microsoft and even Netflix having caching servers installed.
This actually helps alleviate some of the network congestion problems which are generally caused by lack of available bandwidth. This highlights another
problem though, which probably goes more unnoticed. Traditional broadband companies which had a large grip on infrastructure have merged into the realm of
media. The merge into media has been gradual, yet organic of liberal business which expands and transitions into different sectors.

To solve the looming bandwidth problem is not going to be through net neutrality laws. The real solution will be found by forcing a company break-up into
different divisions - one which handles entertainment service delivery and one which handles the infrastructure back-bone.

Infrastructure is simply a utility, which in business terms equates to a not all that profitable sector. But with remaining under the same ownership and
parent company as entertainment services delivery, the profits can be shifted to infrastructure where needed and has the potential to actually benefit
everyone. Looking even further ahead, service providers need to invest in infrastructure development to grow the capabilities of the networks to a point
that net neutrality can actually be achieved through capacity and pricing, where getting higher packet priority services will not matter as there will
effectively be enough bandwidth for everyone and the constant screwing with net neutrality legislation will not be required.

The view on net neutrality is split. Major organizations in support of retaining net neutrality rules are the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic
Frontier Foundation, Greenpeace and Mozilla Foundation. Proponents claim that removing net neutrality hands too much power to service providers and hands
them the keys to operate a multi-tiered system of control which is effectively aimed to direct flow of profits to benefit them.

While opponents include the technology giants of Intel, Juniper, Qualcomm, Cisco and old big blue, IBM. They all argue that net neutrality rules defer
investment in broadband infrastructure.

Currently, there are many different States in the US taking up the fight to the FCC in opposition to the recent changes - fighting in the name of "net
neutrality". In late January, Wired website reported that 21 States were taking up the fight and challenging the FCC. A publicly available table on
Wikipedia which is dated February 28, details 23 States as suing the FCC. While more recently, on March 19, independent media website Digital Music News
reported that up to 36 States were fighting.

Freedom Publishers Union is unable to verify the exact number of US States in opposition to the FCC changes because each State is responding
differently in the fight. Some are jointly suing the FCC. Some are introducing legislation which either blocks the changes or has workarounds which go
towards restoring some net neutrality standards. While others haven't actually introduced the legislation proposals yet but have plans to do so soon. One
thing we can verify though, is that there is definitely opposition to the FCC's decision and this matter does not seem like it has been resolved just
yet.

Freedom Publishers Union is led to conclude that this will not solve anything nor will it improve the situation. Instead, to find the right solution we
need to look much broader than just the pages of rule books. They should be looking at options which eliminate competition laws and create more incentive
for more investment into network infrastructure. Market forces will solve the problem of the current lack of investment in this area, but it starts with
removing the political barriers which stand in the way of progress.

One could be forgiven for concluding that the whole net neutrality battle is simply a smokescreen for covering the service provider's need to generate
revenue to pay for entertainment purchases to deliver to their customers. Service providers are actually against breaking up into separate business
divisions, as we mentioned earlier. And they are also against local monopoly laws that are currently preventing them from other service providers in small
jurisdictions neighborhood and city level. Net neutrality forces service providers to provide transport to other entertainment companies without prejudice.
That is actually part of the solution to this problem. It allows customers to experience entertainment from other sources at much lower cost than the
service provider's choices offered.

Infrastructure is where service providers do have a legal monopoly. Yes, from investment perspective, this would make the infrastructure division
function more like a utility company which to investors, is rather boring and not that attractive. So, we see continued investment in entertainment content
and eliminating competition by consolidating small services into entertainment mega-pack delivery.

This is where the hole in net neutrality benefits service providers. Wireless service delivery is exempted from neutral carriage, which is why we are
seeing wireless service providers offering so much zero-rating and free entertainment from specific content sources. Since wireless is cheaper per customer
to roll-out and maintain compared to traditional wired networks, we simply have a duplicate of the net neutrality problem, just without the wires this time
around. With the incoming roll-out of 5G services, bandwidth availability will rival that of wired networks. Therefore, we may see a situation where the
entire net neutrality fight will start all over again.

To summarize everything - ultimately, the focus needs to shift to infrastructure being forced through regulation and into a monopoly, or duopoly, where
we can see true focus and investment put into service delivery capabilities rather than entertainment and other content being prioritized. This could have
a side-effect of gradual price increases over time for customers and may also slow roll-out of new technology, but it will enforce connection consistency
across America, on both wired and wireless networks, which has much better and fair results for everyone. Because at the end of the day, we do not want a
two-tiered broadband network for Americans across the nation which serves a majority one level of service and a minority a different level. Because if
priority is given to the majority, it's the minority that will ultimately suffer as focus of investment and delivery of services are giving the majority
priority over minority. It is unfair. And whether you agree with the definition of net neutrality or not, that goes against the very principles of what it
stands for.

It is the intention by design that deep packet inspection hardware is supposed to look at data contents of a packet coming into the network and
determine what the content represents how it should treat it and by what action. If the content matches the profile for either a rogue website,
malware or anything else that may be determined to be harmful, the deep packet inspection box is supposed to drop the packet and not act in order to
make the website think that it has given you the data and then proceed to report the problem to the system administrators.

The problem with deep packet inspection boxes (or DPI for short) technology is that it can also be used for good as well as evil. At corporate
sites, DPI boxes send a message to the system administrators if anyone attempts to visit an external website that is on the list of banned connections
from the company. For example, if YouTube is on the list of banned websites and person A goes to YouTube on the company internet connection, a message
stating that person A is attempting to contact a restricted service will go straight to the systems administrators. Again, this is what DPI boxes are
supposed to do in a corporate environment and it's all completely normal procedure, really. They both protect from external threats and limit potential
internal threats from going to places that the company deems as not business-orientated or simply classified as insecure.

Because they have the ability to intercede and inject another website or redirect to another URL, the DPI box can, if programmed, do malicious
things as well as good things. That is obviously what the Sandvines packet monitor is doing. In a sense, this is not outside of what the device is
supposed to do. However, it has been subverted to do something that is not in the best interest of people inside the dictatorships of authoritarian
governments that are deploying this device in a subversive way. The fact that Sandvine advertises this capability to its governmental clients is
questionable but it is not outside the capabilities of any DPI box that's designed to provide the version of connections to sites that are deemed not
advantageous to the government or corporation that uses it.

Malicious payloads are criminal only under the laws of the country where diversion has taken place. So, it might very well be that Turkey, Syria or
any other countries that have implemented the Sandvine device(s) are not aware of the malware it is in fact diverting traffic too. However, it might
just be another way for them to use people they considered to be a problem, to help them gain some revenue or use in defense of things they want to
protect. We do not know for certain. But it must also be considered.

Use of packet sniffers and deep packet inspection software to monitor networks is not uncommon. They are used for a variety of reasons, most of the
time for legitimate security monitoring of network traffic and packet activity. Sometimes they are utilized to debug problem devices connected to the
network. Generally, software tools do not have the same ability to do what DPI hardware does. They can't go in and edit packets and send them back
on-the-fly. Instead, software simply looks at what's going on and reports where necessary. They are effectively just monitors, with very specific
limitations. Still, it's important to understand the technical differences between software and hardware network monitoring and packet inspection
technology and how each is implemented and utilized.

It is equally important to understand and acknowledge that deep packet inspection, diversion or deletion of packets in a data stream is not necessarily
an evil or dishonest thing to do. As noted earlier, corporate firewalls make use of this exact same technology in order to protect the internal network
from possible malware coming from public sites. It's also used to prevent employees from visiting sites that are unrelated to work purposes and visiting
sites that could potentially pose a threat to corporate network security.

All this is something that is done at virtually every level of the internet by the companies that provide the backbone of the infrastructure that support
it, interconnect it and ensure last-mile distribution and connectivity. Internet service providers often deploy this technology in order to send messages or
interrupt a customer's session. We know of cases where this has been done. It is also possible for the internet service provider to actually replace
advertising that is on the network coming from a remote site with their own advertising, or to remove it completely because of its malicious nature. This
could actually have the potential of raising legal questions in some countries of whether it is deemed acceptable security practice or be deemed to be
interference with the service being provided to the client, who is paying simply for internet access and no other service(s). A good example which
demonstrates this, only locally, is your ad-blocking software that you're probably running inside your browser. It is doing the exact same thing as these
deep packet inspection boxes are doing: it is examining the HTML code, looking for specific URL patterns or other suspicious tags, and then either removing
them or replacing them with something else. The script-blocking software NoScript does this down to a very specific, programmable level. You can have it
eliminate each element one at a time, by groups or by a variety of different filtering criteria. In effect, it is working as a DPI firewall, within your
browser.

The recent security research published by Citizen Lab is focused on the Sandvine DPI device. Virtually every hardware firewall device is capable of doing
the same thing. Cisco, Barracuda etc. can all be programmed to perform the same diversions outlined, including malicious diversions too. The only difference
is the intent of the owners of the device: protecting or deceiving their users.

It has been suggested that various countries around the world are placing serious consideration to the concept of implementation of national-level
firewalls, similar to the Great Firewall of China. There are already various means of which countries can block inbound or outbound internet traffic from its
borders. And there have been rumors floating around of some countries having an internet "kill switch", which would essentially stop all internet traffic
within the country with the simple launch of the rumored kill switch. Although Freedom Publishers Union is not aware of such Hollywood-style kill switch being
in actual existence. It was recently revealed that Russia is open to the possibility of implementing its own internet, which would include the Russian
operations of a central domain name system, similar to ICANN, which holds primary responsibility over access and traffic flow of the world's internet. Some
media outlets conclude this is an attempt by Russia to create an entirely new and separate internet. This is incorrect. If Russia's concept was to come to
realization, then it would effectively create a separate backbone of access to the existing internet. The concept requires further review and scrutiny, but
based on what we know so far, it's actually a perfectly reasonable and sensible proposal.

Whilst implementation of a national-level firewall is one option to control internet access of a nation - which will probably be argued that it is to
protect citizens from exposure to malicious content - it does raise many issues of civil liberties and freedom of access to the internet which is free from
censorship. The alternative approach is the path the United States of America which prefers to continue to operate mass-surveillance networks which are wide
in scope and vast in reach, to log, store, analyze and monitor traffic from everywhere around the world, rather than block it.

Ultimately, this technology whether it be software or hardware in nature, can be used beneficially or maliciously. The use/abuse of it is determined by
the laws of the country that hosts the network. A country that defends its citizens freedom of expression and the Rule of Law to protect them will use these
tools for good. It is the duty of organizations like Freedom Publishers Union to keep democratic nations that way.

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavic Press

February 20, 2018 | Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Submitting to Government Pressure, Deleting and Editing Stories
on Government Request

The ABC News, Australia's flagship public broadcasting news agency operated by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, was once known for cutting
edge reporting, investigative journalism and fearless reporting on all the important issues. Something has changed within the walls of the ABC offices.
It has somewhat lost its edge and its age-old mantra of fearless reporting is beginning to show signs of cracks around the edges.

Last week, The Guardian reported on a particular story which was written by the much respected ABC journalist and presenter, Emma Alberici. The
piece that she published on the ABC was taken down off the website after reported complaints by Australia's Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

(As we were about to go to press with this Editorial, Freedom Publishers Union learned from The Australian that the Communications Minister,
Mitch Fifield, also made a formal complaint to the public broadcaster, in addition to the complaint lodged by the Prime Minister.)

The Guardian reports that the ABC claims that the story was removed because it did not meet the required editorial standards for an analysis piece.
There was also another news story which accompanied the piece that was also removed, which made accusations to QANTAS that the company had not paid its
corporate tax for 10 years. At the same time Alberici's first story was being removed, her accompanying story on QANTAS was being edited and rewritten
by the news editors. It was republished, but key economic data and charts have been removed.

According to Guardian Australia, it reports that ABC management were holding what it describes as 'crisis meetings', which occurred after the Prime
Minister launched attacks on the ABC story by Alberici in Question Time. This was followed up by an official complaint in written form, to the public
broadcaster. Later, the ABC would claim the meetings were held before the complaints were lodged. Freedom Publishers Union is at odds with this claim
and calls on the ABC to produce meeting minutes as documentative evidence of the definitive schedule of these meetings.

Freedom Publishers Union has become concerned that the ABC, particularly its news division operated under the Director of News, Gaven Morris, is
willingly responding at the apparent request of government ministers to have information edited or removed. In this particular case, Australia's highest
minister - the Prime Minister.

ABC's Director of News, Gaven Morris, has seemingly caved in to government pressure by acting on the complaint of the Prime Minister by removing a
story and having another edited. Freedom Publishers Union is certainly not directly accusing Mr. Morris of personally ordering the deletion and editing
of stories to please government officials. But to hide behind reasons that particular stories are removed/edited for simply not meeting editorial
standards is strange. Strange, as it is out of character for the ABC and also unjustified on such an accomplished journalist such as Emma Alberici, who
studied economics and was also the hardline former presenter on Lateline, where she was known for her tough and relentless interviews of Australia's
most prominent politicians.

Freedom Publishers Union is very concerned of the editorial tampering the ABC's news-level management are taking against its journalists. We were
able to access the deleted story through the Wayback Machine and can confirm that there was no data in the article that was incorrect. Alberici opened
the removed story with the following statement, which we understand is the primary cause of the governmental complaints towards the piece, with the
following comments, "There is no compelling evidence that giving the country's biggest companies a tax cut sees that money passed on to workers in the
form of higher wages.". This opening comment was justified, absolutely has merit and is not just a matter of uninformed economic opinion of the author,
as suggested by ABC editorial management.

Freedom Publishers Union researched and fact checked the information and concurs with this opening statement. Based on the interactive economic data
and graphs we analyzed for the period of 2008-2018, the data proves that company profits have increased and company wage growth has actually dropped.
Economic projections for wage growth in Australia in 2018 is pretty dismal too. Projections show that Australia is set to grow wages at only 0.4%, some
of the lowest growth rates in developed economies. The theory that lower tax rates bring better wages for workers is largely based on theory, rather
than actual historical data. In fact, data proves contradictory to the theory. We cite the UK, where over the last 10 years the corporate tax rate has
gone from 30% down to just 19%, the lowest it's ever been, yet has not flowed through to wage growth. Actual wage growth has dropped, and for most of
the last 10 years has been stagnant. The data is much the same for Japan. Despite over the same 10 year period of Japan's corporate tax rate dropping
from 40% to 30%, wage growth has been slow and again, quite stagnant over the same period.

Our concerns over the integrity and editorial standards of the ABC extend even further and are not solely related to this one instance.

Freedom Publishers Union were critical of the ABC's decision to return the source document files from the relatively uneventful publication of The
Cabinet Files. The documents that were used as the source of a very limited publication, were handed to the ABC by a source who's identity has not been
revealed. Supposedly, the documents were acquired through the purchase of an ex-government filing cabinet which was locked and sold without the key. The
new owner broke into the cabinet after allowing it to sit, unattended for several months. Reportedly, inside were thousands of government documents -
some of which were classified as "Secret" and were relevant to many different national security matters. Many of the documents were said to be marked
"Australian Eyes Only".

Freedom Publishers Union understands that the source would have handed these documents to the ABC because the ABC has been for a very long time the
most trusted source of news in the country. It is much more respected than commercial news broadcasters. We cannot independently confirm this was the
reason for the source trusting the ABC with the documents, but through careful analysis and process of elimination, this was the most plausible
conclusion that we can draw.

It seems we are not alone. Many analysts in the media have echoed our conclusion. If this was in fact the case, then Freedom Publishers Union
believes that the ABC had a journalistic and ethical responsibility to carefully analyze the documents, said to be in the thousands of pages, and report
on them using safe, ethical and responsible editorial and reporting methods. The ABC is more than capable of handling such sensitive documents and
information. Why was it not able to handle the sensitivity surrounding the information that was provided inside The Cabinet Files? Instead, we saw the
ABC managerial team swoop in and take over what was to be released and what was to be handed back to the government. And let's be honest, the stories
that were published can be described as disposable and genuinely uninteresting to most people. It was only days later though, that government officials
and ASIO intelligence officers entered the office of the ABC and took possession of the physical documents, supposedly to ensure national security
interests were protected. Or the other possibility - to avoid international embarrassment through the leaking of such sensitive intelligence
information.

What Freedom Publishers Union finds extremely disturbing is that the ABC is claiming that there was nothing in the documents that was of public
interest. We just can't allow ourselves to believe this claim. We seriously cannot conclude that there is nothing of public interest in a cabinet full
of government documents that many of them were marked secret/top secret or for Australian Eyes Only. Freedom Publishers Union advocates for governmental
operations transparency. But if such material was deemed to be too sensitive for public disclosure, then we would expect the ABC to report on the
information in a responsible manner and by using appropriate, yet minimal document redaction processes to ensure national security was respected and
maintained.

Freedom Publishers Union is not the first to point out that the ABC is more than capable of such a task and is one of the best news agencies in the
country for dealing with investigate journalism and reporting on sensitive issues. Even the ABC networks own media program, Media Watch, expressed strong
views and skepticism towards the network's handling of The Cabinet Files. Paul Barry of Media Watch cited Gaven Morris when he claimed, "We [the ABC]
could have told hundreds of stories over weeks or months". Paul Barry responded by asking the most obvious rhetorical question, "If that is so, why on
Earth did the ABC not tell them?".

Investigative journalist, Brian Toohey, from the Australian Financial Review responded with much the same response by saying, "The ABC's filing
cabinet kowtow to ASIO and the government was gutless".

Paul Barry sums it up very well by stating, "it is a sorry end to what in many ways was a great get for the ABC" and reaffirms that the network was
"trusted by its source" and "how sad that what could have been a triumph ended in something of a train wreck".

Freedom Publishers Union believes that the public broadcaster failed the Australian people through deciding to not publish more detailed information
on The Cabinet Files. And if the source of the documents chose to hand them over to the ABC for proper investigative journalism to be carried out, then
we expect they must also be extremely disappointed in the way the nation's public broadcaster buckled to government pressure to get their hands on the
documents. In the end, the ABC failed and the government got their way. Which seems to have become common practice now at the public broadcaster.

Freedom Publishers Union support Australia's free press. The country is extremely lucky that it enjoys so much freedom. But we feel under the current
Liberal Party run Government that this is gradually shifting into frightening territory and slowly, piece by piece, these freedoms are eroding through
overbearing legislation that impedes on the nation's freedoms and rights of the people. Specifically, the issues with the ABC started with reduced
funding of the public broadcasting sector, which also includes the SBS network. Prior to the Liberal Party entering into government, there was a specific
promise to the Australian people that public broadcasting would not face funding cuts. Once Liberal was elected into office, they effectively backtracked
on this key election promise. There is no denying that the Australian people were lied to. Albeit, these reductions were small. They were nevertheless
reductions which has seen the ABC forced to make major changes to its radio and television programming to accomodate. Current affairs and news
programming has suffered.

Whilst we're sure the public broadcasters are doing their best to withstand the constant barrage of attacks from the government, we also believe that
they are growing weaker and are more likely to cooperate with the government, or face the very real possibility of further funding cuts if the ABC
demonstrates too much independence. The government is constantly attacking the ABC network when views and opinions expressed through their journalism
differs to government policy or direction of political debate. SBS remains unscathed most of the time. This is very concerning and Freedom Publishers
Union remains in the constant battle to protect public broadcasting in Australia and aims to protect journalism so it remains free from censorship,
governmental interference and can maintain editorial independence. We constantly watch closely, just how much the government aims to curtail the truth
about its flawed economic policy, which when revealed to be flawed through the use of actual data has the potential to influence public opinion and turn
the public's interest against the government's agenda. They don't like it.

Governments are free to disagree with media analysis and opinion. However, they are not free to launch formal complaints just when they disagree and
put media and journalists under pressure to a point they feel they must comply. But this must be backed up with strong leadership and management from
media. And this is the key area where the ABC is failing the public. It no longer has a spine of stubbornness and is much too easily intimidated by
government pressure, which it appears to comply with at almost every request.

Australian's once had a very strong public broadcaster and had confidence in the ABC, which was usually reliable in standing up for its cause. And
Australia's media landscape was stronger for it. Now, we're not so sure.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

February 10, 2018 | Tribute to Freedom Fighter, John Perry Barlow

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply saddened to learn from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) of the passing of internet pioneer and
cyber-libertarian, John Perry Barlow.

John was a Co-Founder of EFF and Freedom of the Press Foundation, and one of the true internet pioneers who in the 1990's foresaw the internet's
full potential to change the lives of humanity, for the better, whilst acknowledging that it could also be used for evil.

John was a true freedom fighter for digital rights and believed that the internet should remain free from unethical government interruption and
over-regulation. Freedom Publishers Union fights for these same rights! So to lose John, is to lose one of our own.

The legacy of his work will continue through the EFF, but John's presence will be missed by all. John was a true freedom fighter for
digitals rights.

As a tribute to John Perry Barlow, Freedom Publishers Union is publishing a manifesto he wrote in 1996 titled "A Declaration of the Independence of
Cyberspace":

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future,
I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always
speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral
right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do
not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public
construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our
ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't
exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social
Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a
world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or
conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter
here.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest,
and the commonweal, our governance will emerge. Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our
constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot
accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.

In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams
of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your
bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity,
from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon
which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at
the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing
media.

Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech
itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human
mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.

These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject
the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over
our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

Freedom Publishers Union - Public Relations Department

February 4, 2018 | New Bill Would Make Australia Worst in the Free World for Criminalizing Journalism

Australia is a world leader in passing the most amendments to existing and new anti-terror and security laws in the liberal democratic world.
Since September 11, 2001, it has passed 54 laws.

The latest suggested addition is the Turnbull government's crackdown on foreign interference. The bill has been heavily criticized by Australian
Lawyers for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and major media organisations for being too heavy-handed and far-reaching in the limits it would place
on freedom of expression and several other civil liberties.

The government's own intelligence watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, argues the bill is so widely worded that its own
staff could break the law for handling documents they need to access to do their job.

A case in point is whether the ABC's publication of confidential and secret cabinet documents would be in breach of the proposed bill. Two filing
cabinets full of thousands of confidential cabinet documents were given to the ABC by a source who, astonishingly, had bought them for small change
at an op-shop in Canberra.

The ABC made an assessment and chose to publish a very limited number of the documents it deemed in the public interest. The ABC has so far clearly
acted responsibly, and no documents that could harm Australia's national security were in the first publication.

Some of the published documents are embarrassing for both the current and former Coalition and Labor governments, but that should not stop publication
- rather, the opposite.

The foreign interference bill, in its current form, suggests it should be criminal for anyone to "receive" and "handle" certain national security
information. It would seem that by just receiving the filing cabinets and assessing what to publish, the ABC staff would be in breach of the provisions
suggested in the bill.

Furthermore, this makes an already heavy-handed whistleblower regime from an international perspective even more draconian. It is sure to lose Australia
several places on the Press Freedom Index if implemented as suggested.

The bill is an overreach in many respects. But one of the worst aspects, from a transparency and accountability point of view, is that it seeks to
extend the draconian Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

Section 70 makes it a crime, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison, for public servants to communicate or supply information to anyone outside
government without permission. The ABC's publication of the cabinet files clearly illustrates that media organisations with ethical and thorough editorial
polices are perfectly capable of assessing what to publish.

The bigger picture is that the current bill is part of a pattern that started after the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001.

In our forthcoming book, In The Name of Security - Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism, my colleagues and I assess how the anti-terror laws and mass
surveillance technologies in the Five Eyes countries has impacted on in-depth public interest journalism. We also compare the Five Eyes with several BRICS
countries and the situation in the European Union.

Our main conclusions are that the current fear-driven security environment has made it much harder for investigative journalists to hold governments and
security agencies to account. This is partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.

Add to this the truly awesome powers of mass surveillance making it increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to grant anonymity to sources
that require it for their own safety, and you end up with a very complex journalist-source situation.

Another important factor in Australia and the UK is that all national security agencies are exempt from Freedom of Information laws. This makes it
virtually impossible to independently acquire information from the security branch of government.

The balance between national security and transparency is complex. As citizens, we want to feel safe and know what is being done to keep us safe. In our
book, we have labelled this the "trust us" dilemma, meaning governments argue they can't disclose what they are doing security-wise, lest the "bad guys" find
out.

That leaves us needing to trust the government's security actions and policies. But the problem is, how can we as citizens decide if we trust the government
if we don't have the information on which to base this decision?

There is no easy answer to this question. Political philosopher Giorgio Agamben takes our reasoning one step further when he argues that the liberal
democratic world has been in a "state of exception" since September 11. This has granted powers to security agencies that are creeping increasingly closer to
those of the totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s.

Agamben traces various states of exception all the way back to Roman times. The pattern is similar through history: governments point to an "other" - often
a hard-to-define enemy - as a reason for increased powers to the security apparatus. They are convinced they are doing the right thing.

The problem is that if we don't roll back the strengthened security laws in times of lower threat, we start from a high level next time we enter a "state of
exception". This in turn can lead to a never-ending war on real or perceived threats where our cherished democratic civil liberties become part of the
collateral damage.

If we allow the "state of exception" to become permanent, we risk allowing the terrorists to win.

Johan Lidberg, Associate Professor, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University

Freedom Publishers Union is absolutely committed to spreading the message of privacy. Everyone deserves the right to privacy and to take action to
uphold that right. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) interprets Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) as "a human rights treaty that guarantees privacy rights. More specifically, Article 17 of the ICCPR protects everyone from arbitrary or
unlawful interferences with their privacy". Freedom Publishers Union notes, that the ICCPR is a civil rights document and not specifically a human
rights document. However, in its interpretation, Article 17 is in fact a privacy right and must be adhered to. Whether 'privacy' itself is a civil
right or a human right is a separate debating point. Irrespective of that, it is a right. Article 17 reads:

-------------------

Article 17

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his
honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

-------------------

When citizens take action to protect their privacy, they often get it wrong. This is not through fault of their own, rather, usually it is through
lack of being provided the education and knowledge required for action to become effective. This is why it has become so important for independent
publications to spread correct and accurate knowledge about security, privacy and the tools to achieve it. We need to get the message across and we
need to get the message right. But there is something that we cannot fix. We are constantly faced with legislative decisions, even in free and
democratic countries, that threaten our ability to take action to protect our privacy. Additionally, we are losing our ability to remain completely
anonymous on the internet, which is a major building block of privacy.

Freedom Publishers Union is not totally comfortable with how privacy is being handled. The way we view privacy today is causing us to become fearful
not just of government or big business, but of ourselves. The bad news is that there never really has been or will be true privacy. We know more about
it today because of people like Edward Snowden, but we've always been faced with someone other than us snooping on our secrets. This has been a part
of our history for as long as we've had written record.

Data trails are left everywhere - on every website - on every server. Before we begin to panic, we need to put things into perspective and understand
what happens with our data on the internet. It can often be confusing. It's certainly complex. It's also very expansive. When using mapping tools to
view and analyze websites and where the data is shared, you're truly only getting a glimpse of the entire connection array. These software tools are
limited in scope and in some cases rely on algorithms to predict where data is going based on previous connections, to fill in the gaps. Still, they
offer incredible insight into just how far data sharing goes.

Google is trying to be an honest broker of the zettabytes of live data that we as humans, scatter around the planet. Amazon is also trying to act in
our best interest. After all, between Google and Amazon, the largest collection of information about people is stored and accessible. Facebook too has
massive chunks of information stored on its users. Their datacenters even hold records of internet users that do not even have Facebook accounts but
have accessed the website or any website that has Facebook linked to it. Whether it's through Facebook's advertising network or simply through social
media sharing, once the connection is made, all data that Facebook can access, it retains for its own commercial advantage. Let's be honest, Facebook
is probably linked in some form to almost every news website and blog in the world. Facebook's stewardship is not lacking, but is being primarily
directed by the its users in a way that makes trying to keep information secure, almost impossible. And completely anonymous, equally impossible.

Transparency is a double-edged sword. We need to be realistic. Google - Amazon - Facebook - all of these companies make money by connecting their users
with advertising that may lead to a sale where both parties share the benefits. But it comes at the cost of sharing information. That information has a
different value to each of the parties. These sources openly provide snippets (terabyte snippets, but still a fraction of the raw data) for third-party
analysis. It's very easy to connect the dots and derive new information from the large patterns that you find. Facebook provides social interactions.
Amazon knows 'why we buy' and 'what we buy'. Google provides insight into our curiosity and from that, what our conscious interests are.

There are many other smaller firms focused on narrower data streams - Axciom, Experian and Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) to name a few. Taken together, all of
these firms collect masses of anonymous data, analyze it, then apply the analysis as filters over individuals. Despite public perception and concerns
over privacy violations, they really don't care about the details of a single person, but they allow individuals to be categorized in the context of a
'transaction'. Whether it's buying a car, deciding on a book or planning a crime, the data is meaningless outside of the context of the applied filter.
The data truly is anonymous right up to the very end. Only when the final context is applied does the Schrödinger's Cat of identity precipitate into a
real person. Effectively, it's our data that is being traded. Not really our identities.

And that's the problem. Because the data that's filtered relies on so many different sources with different obfuscation and different data points in
their storage, we end up with blind men and an elephant. No one has a full picture of all the data points that make up an individual. Schrödinger's Cat
appears, but sometimes missing ears or a tail. That's what causes the errors in results, why gay women get Viagra adverts or an innocent person is swept
up and accused of being a terrorist. This is a failing of algorithms and is why these advertising algorithms are constantly being updated and refined,
in an effort to be as precise as possible within the contextual restraints of the data filters and with minimal identity detection built in to the entire
stream. Transparency cuts both ways. The problem is like medicine. Every year we learn more about illness and curing disease, but those diagnosed and
treated last year could be out of luck. The more that is known, the better the results become. We don't drill holes in skulls for headaches!

Anonymity is a middle ground between secrecy and full transparency. What we need to do is get to a point where we change our attitudes towards things
that really don't matter in the greater scheme and focus on those aspects of 'our lives' that do matter. People are more worried about the interpretation
of a hug or a smile or a friendship than they are about how their lives are being manipulated. We need to learn and understanding the impact of privacy
and the way people can be hurt by it, and also understand the reality of what's happening with the technology and the impact it can have on people's
lives.

We are right at the cusp of becoming a 'post-privacy' society. Actually, it's difficult to pin-point whether we have entered the post-privacy era or
whether we are at the border, staring over into foreign territory. Following the original Snowden leaks, in an article titled "The Post-Privacy World"
written in July 2013 for Wired, Nova Spivack said, "While it is tempting to have a knee-jerk reaction against government intrusion in our lives, in fact
it's not that simple. Whether it's PRISM or Wikileaks that worries us more, we are clearly in a different world now. One in which privacy is being replaced
by something new - transparency - and this has implications that go right to the heart of our democracy.". Furthermore, Nova adds, "Given that secrets will
become ever more difficult and costly to protect, our expectation of privacy has to evolve. We have to accept that it's impossible and unrealistic to
achieve total privacy". Nova pretty much sums it up right there. That folks, is our entry into the post-privacy era. But there's a slight problem with this.
Nova wrote those words in 2013, and it's now 2018. Almost 5 years have passed, yet it somehow feels that we are still spooked by privacy violations of our
identities online and having all our actions scooped up in dragnet surveillance. Nova continues by stating, "We are now entering the Age of Transparency,
an era of increasing openness at all levels of society. Transparency arises when it becomes increasingly hard to keep secrets, and so the focus shifts to
how to behave when anything (from personal info to state secrets) can be discovered if one is determined enough.".

Perhaps post-privacy doesn't exist and is simply something that we drum up in our minds. A kind of paranoia. Facebook is leading the way to socialize the
idea, and the other data pools will follow soon after. But, in order for this post-privacy world to function properly, people need to understand that
everything they do is being saved and stored in a datacenter somewhere, by some company and most likely being traded too. Problems won't become problems if
enough context, enough data, exists to clarify them. Because anonymity is secure until the final moment, it's only when the last step in the transaction
executes that the data becomes a human. So, if that moment can be held off, less data leakage will occur.

Whilst it can't be guaranteed to work, there is a concept that may come close. First, we need to create a true 'honest broker' to act as the secure clearing
house for personal data. Think of an 'ICANN for data', if you will. They assign everyone a unique key that is used to identify you and they maintain the
repositories of raw data, linked only by the unique key. But the key is set up the way a one-time token is, and each request for data gets a unique key, good
only for that requestor and dataset. The analysis can theoretically occur with complete anonymity. When the final result is found, the request returns to the
honest broker - the request is verified - and the transaction is completed. Through this process, each request for data and the results are correlated and,
using something like a blockchain, the audit trail is maintained without compromising on security and anonymity. If data does leak, it's simply a matter of
crawling back up the blockchain and identifying which request caused the leak.

Such a proposal would not be easy, would realistically take at least a decade to implement properly and to receive the security it deserves. And of course,
governments and criminals will try to keep their own copies. But the costs of duplication will quickly eliminate the problem. There should be no special
requests for any court, media, journalist, military, Kings/Queens or Congress. The problem is developing a Charter that keeps the honest broker completely
transparent and neutral, as both would be key to the successful rollout and also maintaining that the requests for special access remain barred at all
times.

Without a working prototype of such a proposal, it is difficult to foresee what security vulnerabilities could arise. The question of security is paramount
and would need to be dealt with. By having a centralized data broker, you cannot escape the realization that security concerns are present and questions are
going to be asked. But if implemented properly, it would finally allow for all data to be treated equal and all requests would be handled in the same
transparent manner.

Perhaps Julian Assange isn't so crazy after all. He fights for total transparency. It was once thought that his concept was crazy. Now, it's becoming much
more appealing.

February 1, 2018 | Grip on Australia's Press Freedom Looks to be Tightened. Borders on Authoritarian!

It was on the last day of sitting for 2017 for Australia's House of Representatives, that the Liberal Party of Australia introduced proposed
changes to the laws surrounding espionage and other matters of national security, which could see the possibility of detrimental effects be placed
on the free press in the country.

Criticism comes as the Parliament is set to return next week. The proposed changes in the legislation titled "National Security Amendment
(Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017", is sure to become a deep topic which will see heavy debate ensue.

The proposed espionage changes are reportedly in response to Australia feeling the pinch from threats from foreign interference of other nations.
Although it has not been officially recognized, China is at the heart of their concerns, along with Russia. Whether the two countries actually pose
any legitimate threat to Australia's strong functioning democracy, is an open question. In fact, the proposals are more reflective of attacks that
attempt to silence specific areas of the media.

There are many valid concerns which have been raised by many journalists, publishers and media outlets. The proposed changes are complex in their
writing and the scope much too broad. As outlined in the actual legislative document, anyone and media will be forbidden to:

("it" refers to information)

Receive or obtain it,

collect it,

possess it,

make record of it,

copy it,

alter it,

conceal it,

communicate it,

publish it,

or make it available.

Freedom Publishers Union expresses opposition to the proposed changes because there have already been sweeping changes over the past couple of years
with other parts of the law, directly related to national security concerns. "The changes Australia has already implemented have done enough. In my
opinion, they've already gone too far and already threaten the freedom that Australia enjoys with a free press. These latest proposals threaten the free
press even further. But not just the free press, but whistleblowers, journalists and publishers. Effectively, our own organization [Freedom Publishers
Union] could face legal action if we are to even receive information related to anything on national security matters. And that's even before we've made
the information public. To me, that sounds very authoritarian.", says Freedom Publishers Union Editor, Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

Under the current proposals that have been tabled, journalists, publishers and media outlets can all face heavy handed legal action pushed against
them when reporting on foreign intelligence and national security matters. And this is irrespective of whether it is in the public's interest. The
proposals actually take a much tighter grip on the free press, by leaving open the possibility that those in media can face the same hefty legal action
if they do not report on the issues, but are in possession of source documents that could be used for reporting on matters which the Government is
claiming are sensitive to matters of national security. Whistleblowers could also face legal action placed against them. There's nobody in the chain of
how the source-to-media process operates that would be free from possibility of prosecution under these draconian espionage law changes, if they pass and
get enacted.

Chris continues, "As the grip around freedom of speech and the free press in Australia gets tightened, Freedom Publishers Union sees dark times ahead
for Australian media if we are not even allowed to report and document on matters which may be based off leaked documents or other information, deemed to
be in the public interest and declared suitable for public disclosure.".

In a completely ironic and unforeseen situation, as Freedom Publishers Union were in the process of preparing this Editorial, a major developing story
broke from the nation's public broadcaster, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The news agency has obtained thousands of pages of top secret and
classified documents from several different Parliamentary Cabinets. The ABC obtained the documents from a source who purchased some ex-government filing
cabinets. The filing cabinets were bought cheap as they were locked, reportedly with no key for access. The owner cracked into the filing cabinets to find
the source documents, unexpectedly. Whilst this story is still effectively developing as we go to press, it must be noted that to the best of our
understanding, under current laws the ABC is more than entitled to report on the documents. However, under the aforementioned proposed changes, no media
agency would be permitted to report on them. "Effectively, this is media censorship at its finest. Here, in Australia, happening right in front of our
eyes.", Chris concludes.

The timing of the documents coming into the hands of the public broadcaster could not be more perfect, as it puts on a public show by example of the
threat that the current espionage proposed changes actually pose to Australia's free and open press which is still taken for granted by so many Australian
citizens.

Despite the claims by the Liberal Party that the legislation has protection clauses drafted into the document to prevent any restrictions being placed
on the free press, we are not confident that it goes anywhere near far enough. As we have analyzed the proposed legislation, we can only find minimal
reference in just a line or two, noting that there will be legal exclusion for "fair and accurate reporting". Freedom Publishers Union advocates very
strongly against the proposed changes, unless serious amendments are put forward which will guarantee protection for whistleblowers, journalists and
publishers.

Australia enjoys a free press, much like the Unites States of America and other democratic countries. It must be protected against constant attempts to
place restrictions on what can be and what can't be reported by media. Media outlets must be allowed to have the freedom to publish what they deem to be in
the public interest, in an ethical, and professionally responsible manner.

On January 19, 2018, Politico broke a story of which describes the destruction of data related to one of the most intensive of the NSA's vast
network of surveillance programs - the President's Surveillance Program (PSP). Irrespective of the actual cause, it is clear that the NSA has
failed in its mandate to protect the data. Since 2007, the NSA was ordered by the courts to ensure the protection of surveillance data related
to the illegal and warrantless wiretapping of international communications, which was ordered and authorized by former President George W. Bush
following the 2001 terror attacks on the Twin Towers, in New York.
Additional details have been revealed that backups of data from 2001-2007 have also been destroyed. It is stated that backup tapes that could
have potentially been used to restore the original data, were destroyed in 2009, 2011 and 2016. The NSA claims the data was destroyed as part of
a "broad, housecleaning effort" which was carried out to free up space for incoming data. However, The Hill has reported that the NSA still
retain the metadata of the main data that was destroyed and if required, the metadata used as evidence.

PSP was in operation from 2001 until it expired in 2007. From 2007 onwards, it was significantly broken up and portions of the program were
renewed under different legislation, while other parts were supposedly dropped. Although the specifics of what went where are extremely complex
and the process has not exactly been transparent. Therefore, speaking on a general basis, Freedom Publishers Union is skeptical of any suggestion
that the NSA has improved its ways and we still believe there is much more oversight required to reign in much of the NSA's unnecessary spying on
civilians.

A lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation suggested that the NSA has a "tremendous volume of information they're [the agency] vacuuming up"
and that it is "impossible to be meticulous" in the safe management of the data. The NSA admits it has failed in its obligations to protect the
data from destruction, but makes no justification of why the backup data was also destroyed. And this is where privacy activists and civil
libertarians are going to focus their attacks on the NSA, which will undoubtedly be relentless and unforgiving.

We must be careful and understand that it could very likely be a simple error of judgment by some innocent worker(s) inside the agency. It's
difficult to conclude definitively, based on what representatives from the NSA have publicly stated. As the operations inside the agency are some
of the most secretive in the world, the public is forced to accept the public statements made by officials from the NSA. We note that in 2014, an
official stated that "the NSA has stored these tapes in the offices of its General Counsel". But now four years later in 2018, the NSA now claims
that that original statement was only "partially accurate when made".

It raises the obvious question - Should the NSA still be engaging in dragnet surveillance if it cannot properly manage and secure the data?

Freedom Publishers Union believes that mass-surveillance is returning to the pre-Snowden era, is being expanded and broadened in scope under the
Trump Administration. Where there are legal loop holes to be exploited, the NSA is exploiting them. Where there are no loopholes to jump through,
the NSA uses the extensive surveillance programs capabilities of its intelligence sharing partners in the Five Eyes intelligence network. The NSA
has previously relied upon the operations carried out by their British spying partners at the GCHQ. This close relationship continues today.

Freedom Publishers Union has connected with people who have worked inside both government agencies and in the private sector. We have reason to
believe that if the NSA destruction of the data was a genuine accident, then it would not be the first time something this silly has occurred
inside such a high-level government agency. We add that if it were a simple scenario of old data being deleted in an effort to clear up some free
space, then it is very likely that the person who carried out the original removal were unaware of what the precise data was and probably unaware
it was meant to be safeguarded against its removal. But this would be put down to sloppy management of such critical data and could not be deemed
the sole fault of one (or more) individuals. We also have information directly from sources who work have worked in the big data industry for
close to 40 years, who will gladly admit that backups are the major joke of the industry. Failing backup data is a regular occurrence and there's
not much confidence in backup storage technology in general.

If it were to be confirmed the destruction of the data was intentional, it seems inevitable the US Government is going to get crucified. One could
not imagine a worse situation. Politically, those on the opposite would use this to the highest extent possible, leaving the government with not
much defense. If we see any kind of extensive investigation into the event, then it is very likely that it might spread further than the walls of
the NSA and into the CIA, the FBI and further. How long is a piece of string? This ordeal has the potential of making the United States of America
(USA) look stupid. It is that bad. The USA has very little credibility left, politically. If a country has an intelligence information sharing
arrangement with the USA, then we'd recommend they tread carefully and take a few steps back because everybody is going to become a suspect.

Surely, just surely, somebody inside the NSA - one of the world's most elite spy agencies - could not be that stupid to recklessly hit the delete
key on such important data, without first verifying that it was no longer needed? Or did 'that person' have higher authority permitting them to
execute the destruction of the data? Is this just how stupid, incompetent and pythonesque governments have become? Occams razor bloodies the
idiots.

Technology is in every corner of the world and we appreciate it in each step of our lives. Technology unlocks the world before us and allows us to
realize our potential, but it also has the potential of unlocking a straight line of access for attackers.

The word "hacking" is almost known by everyone in this digital life. We believe hacking to be a good thing. Yeah, it can be illegal. But it is
challenging the technology industry in a positive way which is helping to make security stronger.

Now, we are part of a generation where we don't have to unlock our devices by putting password manually because of our passwords can now be our body
parts, like the iris and fingerprints. Sure, traditional methods of security still exist, but biometrics are improving security and is an example of
how we have improved our security.

Hacking can be done through hardware or software. Software has many options to hack because you can directly interact with it through the network.
But hardware is a little bit different, as it has fewer options. This is because you can't get direct access to it in the same way you can with
software.

Wikipedia describes Intel Active Management Technology (AMT) as "hardware and firmware technology for remote out-of-band management of personal
computers. It is used in order to monitor, maintain, update, upgrade and repair". All this could be done through remote connectivity. Like all
technology, AMT has two faces - Advantage and Disadvantage.

Freedom Publishers Union learned of the loophole from a publication released by security firm F-Secure. But the original vulnerability is tracked back
to a white hat hacker from Finland, who is also a F-Secure Security Consultant, named Harry Sintonen. He discovered the AMT vulnerability back in July 4,
2017. According to details in the full security advisory accessed by Freedom Publishers Union, he made contactwith many technology companies including
Fujitsu, ASUS, Dell, Lenovo, HP, ASUS, Panasonic, Samsung, Toshiba and Acer. Most importantly, Intel was notified on July 11 and July 12, 2017. Intel
confirmed the advisory was received on July 12, 2017. Some of these companies responded to the advisory notice. Specifically, Intel did take action in
what seems like an attempt to rectify the security issue. Information was not available to Freedom Publishers Union at the time of going to press as to
how effective Intel's action has been to inform its customers about the AMT vulnerability. We were able to cite a technical security document supplied by
Intel, provided through F-Secure, that confirms that notification of the vulnerability was confirmed by Intel by adding it to its Security Advisories for
Intel Active Management Technology, under the Advisory Number "INTEL-SA-00075". It was unclear to us what action other companies had taken, specifically
laptop vendors.

Essentially, there is a loophole in Intel processors that allow an attacker to bypass logins, leaving open the potential to place a backdoor on the laptop
which allows adversaries remote access to laptops. F- Secure claim the loophole can be exploited in less than one minute. The technique requires attackers
to have physical access to the computer and also assumes the target has not configured their system to protect the Intel Management Engine BIOS Extension
(MEBx) account on computers that support Intel AMT.

As we stated earlier, AMT is a remote feature of Intel processors normally used in vPro enabled and Xeon processors. But you may now be thinking what is
MEBx account? MEBx is the account in the Management Engine BIOS extension on AMT-based computers and is used for initial authenticated access to the AMT
firmware on in Configuration Manager 2007 SP1 and later. If you enable the out of band management feature, you must configure the password to use for the
MEBx account in the Configuration Manager 2007 console when migrating computers to Configuration Manager that have been provisioned for AMT by using
another management solution. Physically, you would not find access to this account in any of the operating system's access on the machine, apart from the
BIOS menu.
F-Secure writes, "The issue allows a local intruder to backdoor almost any corporate laptop in a matter of seconds, even if the BIOS password, TPM Pin,
Bitlocker and login credentials are in place. No, we're not making this stuff up. The setup is simple: an attacker starts by rebooting the target's
machine, after which they enter the boot menu. In a normal situation, an intruder would be stopped here; as they won't know the BIOS password, they can't
really do anything harmful to the computer.".

The F-Secure publication continues, "In this case, however, the attacker has a workaround: AMT. By selecting Intel's Management Engine BIOS Extension (MEBx),
they can log in using the default password "admin", as this hasn't most likely been changed by the user. By changing the default password, enabling remote
access and setting AMT's user opt-in to "None", a quick-fingered cyber-criminal haseffectively compromised the machine. Now the attacker can gain access to
the system remotely, as long as they're able to insert themselves onto the same network segment with the victim.".

We conclude by pointing out that although physical access is required to initiate the exploit, "this might not be as difficult for skilled attackers to
organize as you might think.", Harry Sintonen says.

There is growing concern over the lack of attention to security that is being provided to in-browser password managers, which are now commonly included
in almost all popular web browsers. Whilst it is widely accepted among the computer security circles that third-party password managers generally handle
security better, in-browser password managers are still widely used. Their use which is considered pretty standard for password management, can only be
based on the fact they offer somewhat more convenience than a third-party tool. Well, that is the common perception anyway. We believe security to be of
the utmost importance. When a consumer is offered a choice of convenience or high-security, then the choice is very clear and should always be in favor
of increased security. But sadly, among consumers this is still not the case.

Results published by the Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy, in-browser password managers are being exploited using known
vulnerabilities when combined with third-party scripts which are used for tracking users. According to the Princeton research, a user's credentials can be
exploited when the user saves their submitted credentials to the in-browser password manager. The third-party script is usually not present on the login
page, yet when the user is returned to a non-login page on the same website, a third-party script can invisibly reside and then exploit the saved
credentials.

The research warns of the vulnerability, which has been known to exist for literally years. Yet it continues to go unresolved, to the best of our
understanding. Usually, it is exploited by cross-site scripting, or otherwise known as XSS. The research claims that of the 50,000 websites that were
analyzed, there was no exploitation occurring using the technique described in the research. Instead, it was discovered that tracking scripts were actually
embedded by the first-party. The scripts effectively siphon off the email address information and send the relevant data to third-party tracking servers.
The scripts the Princeton research department found were present on 1,110 of the top 1 million websites on Alexa.

In an effort to prove their research, sample code is provided in source form along with a demonstration of the code also being provided through a running
demo website. In collaboration with our technology publishing partners, Tecseek Technology, we tested the code and can independently verify that the exploit
is very real and does in fact leak user credentials that have been saved to the in-browser password manager.

The simplicity of executing the exploit is what we find truly alarming. All that is required for a web browser to determine which website is used to enter
the credentials using auto-fill, is a set of heuristics which simply require a login form to be present. Generally, this does not require any interaction by
the user for the password manager to automatically enter the credentials into the form. This is what enables to possibility for the exploit to rear its ugly
head. A third-party script can hide an invisible login form on the page and effectively take advantage of the same auto-fill ability. A third-party script
can usually bedetected by anyone who cares to analyze the site code in finer detail, which can easily be done from inside the web browser's developer tools.
However, it is not a realistic or practical approach to dealing with this security exploit.

There is concern over what precise information could be collected, expanding in scope beyond simply an email address. The research discovered that the
common "OnAudience" script tracks the email address, browser type, plugins installed, display dimensions and resolution, time-zone and language configuration,
user-agent, operating system and CPU information. Taking all this information into account, the script will generate a fingerprint to identify the user.
"OnAudience" claim that they only collect anonymous information. This is a false claim as email addresses are not anonymous and could potentially be matched
up with the supposedly unique fingerprint.

As stated earlier, these kinds of browser-based vulnerabilities are not new. We viewed bug reports as old as 10 years on the Mozilla Bugzilla reporting
platform. Additionally, we cited multiple academicpapers from multiple colleges and universities which have composed their own research, which not only
substantiate the concerns over security with in-browser password managers, but also the auto-fill feature in general.

It's a more complicated problem than what you might first conclude. Despite more than 10 years of complaints being made public, there is still no potential
'fix' for this vulnerability. Instead, we see browser developers and vendors touting that there is no actual 'vulnerability', at least not in the same way
they would determine and label an actual vulnerability. Therefore, as it goes, if there is no vulnerability then there is realistically no hole in the software
to be fixed in the first place. Freedom Publishers Union don't quite share this conclusion and it appears that browser developers and vendors are side-stepping
on the issue and don't seem very intent on finding any real solution to eliminate the possibility of abuse of the vulnerability, or security hole. The blame is
actually being shifted onto website publishers for allowing these tracking scripts onto their web platform, willingly and with complete ignorance towards data
being tracked and shared with third-party servers and used for user tracking purposes.

In-browser password managers are part of the problem, as there should never be a clear text exchange of credentials. A one-time hash or some sort of
non-identifying exchange should be the norm for sites that require access while inside the secured part of a website. Even two-factor authentication doesn't
address this issue, as the purpose is simply to generate an identifier across multiple sites. Hashing the User ID/Email ID is just a way to create a mostly
unique value for tracking purposes.

The problem is that getting an ID - whether it's the email address or full credentials - has been handed off to unreliable third-party actors. Remember, the
actual site owner already knows your credentials and probably has complete access to the database too. They gain nothing from this entire exercise. Only a
third-party that is looking to inject ads or track users need this information. It's all about tracking for the purpose of third-party's gathering data. This
should be emphasized.

This could be addressed by standardizing on a single broker of identity. Google is trying to do this by promoting your Google Ad ID - managed by them - as an
anonymous point of contact to a customer. By being the middle man, Google ensures that identity stops at their border. But this approach is certainly not
flawless and can raise further security concerns. It is perfectly legitimate to raise the question of why we should put all our trust in Google, or any other
single broker of identity, to be the ultimate gatekeeper of our digital identity.

There is great potential for even further extension of security related problems surrounding password managers included in web browsers. As more and more
browsers are shipped with the ability to authorize a central database of user credentials to be shared across multiple devices, also referred to as syncing,
the problem has the very real possibility of growing into something more than what was once thought to be restricted to the computer web browser. This was
confirmed on August 2016, when Opera confirmed a server breach on their Opera Sync software.

So, as we draw to a conclusion of our analysis of this problem, we must attempt to answer the obvious question - What is the solution to avoid becoming a
victim of this vulnerability? Installing web browser extensions that aim to block and illegitimate and unsafe XSS are the most sensible solution and will give
you immediate protection. Something else you should consider is disabling any auto-fill feature your web browser is using. If you insist on using auto-fill,
then consider implementing any options your web browser provides which prompt for user authorization when auto-fill is prompted. This will force the user to
actually authorize the auto-fill data to be entered. It might completely undo the entire purpose of auto-fill, however, security of your data, maintaining your
privacy and avoiding becoming a victim of targeted third-party web tracking should be your highest priority. Computer security expert and cryptographer,
Bruce Schneier, recommends that users create password lists through a password manager that is a completely separate program to that of your web browser. We
concur.

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavic Press

January 16, 2018 | Spectre and Meltdown Attacks Against
Microprocessors

The following computer security essay was written by Computer Security Expert and Cryptographer, Bruce Schneier and was distributed in the January
15, 2018 edition of his "CRYPTO-GRAM" email newsletter which is widely distributed and respected among the computer security community.

Freedom Publishers Union is re-publishing the essay here in its unedited entirety. The views expressed in the essay are that of Bruce Schneier and
not that of Freedom Publishers Union. However, it is re-published here in accordance with our Editorial Process and highly regarded as very accurate
at the time of publishing.

---

The security of pretty much every computer on the planet has just gotten a lot worse, and the only real solution -- which of course is not a solution --
is to throw them all away and buy new ones.

On January 3, researchers announced a series of major security vulnerabilities in the microprocessors at the heart of the world's computers for the past
15-20 years. They've been named Spectre and Meltdown, and they have to do with manipulating different ways processors optimize performance by rearranging
the order of instructions or performing different instructions in parallel. An attacker who controls one process on a system can use the vulnerabilities to
steal secrets elsewhere on the computer.

This means that a malicious app on your phone could steal data from your other apps. Or a malicious program on your computer -- maybe one running in a
browser window from that sketchy site you're visiting, or as a result of a phishing attack -- can steal data elsewhere on your machine. Cloud services,
which often share machines amongst several customers, are especially vulnerable. This affects corporate applications running on cloud infrastructure, and
end-user cloud applications like Google Drive. Someone can run a process in the cloud and steal data from every other user on the same hardware.

Information about these flaws has been secretly circulating amongst the major IT companies for months as they researched the ramifications and coordinated
updates. The details were supposed to be released next week, but the story broke early and everyone is scrambling. By now all the major cloud vendors have
patched their systems against the vulnerabilities that can be patched against.

"Throw it away and buy a new one" is ridiculous security advice, but it's what US-CERT recommends. It is also unworkable. The problem is that there isn't
anything to buy that isn't vulnerable. Pretty much every major processor made in the past 20 years is vulnerable to some flavor of these vulnerabilities.
Patching against Meltdown can degrade performance by almost a third. And there's no patch for Spectre; the microprocessors have to be redesigned to prevent
the attack, and that will take years.

This is bad, but expect it more and more. Several trends are converging in a way that makes our current system of patching security vulnerabilities harder
to implement.

The first is that these vulnerabilities affect embedded computers in consumer devices. Unlike our computers and phones, these systems are designed and
produced at a lower profit margin with less engineering expertise. There aren't security teams on call to write patches, and there often aren't mechanisms
to push patches onto the devices. We're already seeing this with home routers, digital video recorders, and webcams. The vulnerability that allowed them to
be taken over by the Mirai botnet last August simply can't be fixed.

The second is that some of the patches require updating the computer's firmware. This is much harder to walk consumers through, and is more likely to
permanently brick the device if something goes wrong. It also requires more coordination. In November, Intel released a firmware update to fix a vulnerability
in its Management Engine (ME): another flaw in its microprocessors. But it couldn't get that update directly to users; it had to work with the individual
hardware companies, and some of them just weren't capable of getting the update to their customers.

The final reason is the nature of these vulnerabilities themselves. These aren't normal software vulnerabilities, where a patch fixes the problem and
everyone can move on. These vulnerabilities are in the fundamentals of how the microprocessor operates.

It shouldn't be surprising that microprocessor designers have been building insecure hardware for 20 years. What's surprising is that it took 20 years to
discover it. In their rush to make computers faster, they weren't thinking about security. They didn't have the expertise to find these vulnerabilities. And
those who did were too busy finding normal software vulnerabilities to examine microprocessors. Security researchers are starting to look more closely at these
systems, so expect to hear about more vulnerabilities along these lines.

Spectre and Meltdown are pretty catastrophic vulnerabilities, but they only affect the confidentiality of data. Now that they -- and the research into the
Intel ME vulnerability -- have shown researchers where to look, more is coming -- and what they'll find will be worse than either Spectre or Meltdown. There will
be vulnerabilities that will allow attackers to manipulate or delete data across processes, potentially fatal in the computers controlling our cars or implanted
medical devices. These will be similarly impossible to fix, and the only strategy will be to throw our devices away and buy new ones.

This isn't to say you should immediately turn your computers and phones off and not use them for a few years. For the average user, this is just another attack
method amongst many. All the major vendors are working on patches and workarounds for the attacks they can mitigate. All the normal security advice still applies:
watch for phishing attacks, don't click on strange e-mail attachments, don't visit sketchy websites that might run malware on your browser, patch your systems
regularly, and generally be careful on the Internet.

You probably won't notice that performance hit once Meltdown is patched, except maybe in backup programs and networking applications. Embedded systems that do
only one task, like your programmable thermostat or the computer in your refrigerator, are unaffected. Small microprocessors that don't do all of the vulnerable
fancy performance tricks are unaffected. Browsers will figure out how to mitigate this in software. Overall, the security of the average Internet-of-Things device
is so bad that this attack is in the noise compared to the previously known risks.

It's a much bigger problem for cloud vendors; the performance hit will be expensive, but I expect that they'll figure out some clever way of detecting and
blocking the attacks. All in all, as bad as Spectre and Meltdown are, I think we got lucky.

But more are coming, and they'll be worse. 2018 will be the year of microprocessor vulnerabilities, and it's going to be a wild ride.

December 30, 2017 | Yemen - 68 Civilians Killed in a Single Day, 109 Killed in 10 Days

The Yemeni Civil War is entering its third year. What has changed and what progress has been made over its deadly course? Nothing. Zero. We still
see the same arguments from both sides, the same claims and we still see civilians being caught up in the unjust war, often becoming the targets.

In the past 10 days, 109 civilians have been killed, in two separate incidents. 54 civilians were killed at a busy vegetable market in Attazziah,
in the province of Taiz. Among those killed were 8 children. The civilian casualties were the result of Saudi-led airstrike.

In another incident, a family of 14 were killed on a farm situated further West, in Al Hudaydah. The region is where Saudi Arabia believes that Iran is
smuggling weapons to Houthi rebels. A claim that goes unconfirmed and is disputed by many.

It's all a too familiar scenario, as the United Nations (UN) states that the Saudi-led coalition continuously target civilians and their residencies.
International aid groups and advocacy groups echo the calls of the UN. The accusations stand justified, by observing the continued destruction of the
country's medical facilities and other critical infrastructure. Much of which is damaged beyond use or completely destroyed by airstrikes and reduced to
just rubble.

Freedom Publishers Union has recently learned that the Houthi's are not an innocent party and should not be portrayed as such. They now initiate
crackdowns in regions that remain under their control. As we understand, they are arresting hundreds of people they believe were previously associated with
the former Yemen President, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Despite the accusations being questionable, the automated assumption of being guilty and no way to prove
their validity, people are still being arrested. It remains unclear to Freedom Publishers Union what is happening to those that are arrested and we have
genuine concerns for the welfare of innocent victims. Houthi rebels are also blocking entry of humanitarian aid transport and there are reports they are
continuously trying to force the shutdown of internet access. Although Freedom Publishers Union can not independently verify the latter claim.

Jamie McGoldrick of the UN says, "The incidents prove the complete disregard for human life that all parties, including the Saudi-led coalition,
continue to show in this absurd war that has only resulted in the destruction of the country [Yemen]".

Reportedly, the Saudi's are very unhappy with the comments and views made public by Mr. Goldrick which give the impression the UN supports the Houthi
rebels. The Saudi's also claim it puts doubt on the information and data gathered and used by the UN to draw their positions on international matters. A
major sticking point with Saudi Arabia is their staunch view that the Houthi rebels are supported by Iran. It is well known to the international community
the Saudi-led military has the complete support and backing of the United States of America and Britain, through political support, motive and arms
sales.

UN officials clearly state that there are no military solutions that can or will resolve this conflict. Freedom Publishers Union calls for an immediate
cease fire from all sides, followed by peace negotiations. That is what is needed. Otherwise, we fear there will be no foreseeable end to the conflict and
it will potentially drag on for many years, with no vision or mission which will see the end of this horrific war which is largely being ignored by many
parts of the developed world.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones of Freedom Publishers Union says, "It is quickly becoming clear that those that have major influence and power in international
politics choose to stand by and watch the horrors of civilian casualties inside Yemen, unfold right in front of their eyes. They have the power to inluence an
immediate change of course of this war and put Yemen on a path to peace. Yet it's clear they're choosing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities of civilian
casualties.".

There is no accurate figure which can detail the increasing death toll, but estimates suggest it to be over 10,000 killed. That figure was an estimate
put forward in 2016. As we approach the last days of 2017, it is very likely the number is on the conservative side and almost certain to be much
higher.

Saudi Arabia have not officially released any statement or acknowledgment in response to the deaths of the civilians, as an undisputed and direct result
of the latest round of airstrikes. Instead, they are attempting to divert attention off civilian casualties and are proudly announcing that they are allowing
humanitarian aid to pass through the port of Hodeidah, over the last couple of weeks. Despite the UN pushing for the port to be reopened and utilized to its
full capacity, the Saudi's continue to only allow a small number of ships into the port with the very real possibility that the port will again see closure
in just 30 days. Yet they so proudly declare to the public of their shy efforts of allowing humanitarian aid into Yemen, which is said to be starving up to
70% of the civilians stuck inside the war-torn country and who require the aid so urgently.

The reopening of the port is a good thing. It doesn't matter which side it comes from, if humanitarian aid is free to travel through ports and into
Yemen, then that can only be encouraged. However, we must not ignore the hypocrisy of the Saudi's who attempt to charm the international community by touting
their lackluster humanitarian contributions and use it as a façade to continue to launch airstrikes on civilians which directly violate international law and
carry out human rights abuse on a grand scale in Yemen and within the borders of their own country.

European Press Office - Moscow Press

December 16, 2017 | New Foreign Interference Laws Will Compound Risks to Whistleblowers and Journalists

The Turnbull government has announced a crackdown on foreign interference in Australian politics and national security. Proposed laws include a ban on foreign
political donations, new criminal offences, and a transparency register for those acting on behalf of foreign governments or organisations.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull carefully emphasised that the proposals are not focused on China's influence in Australia. But, as the Lowy Institute's
Euan Graham put it, there's an in the room.

The proposed criminal offences will significantly expand the scope of existing laws against espionage and treason. This will make it easier to prosecute spies
and other foreign nationals who seek undue influence over Australian business or politics.

However, the new laws pose risks to whistleblowers and journalists. They suggest the concept of "national security" is continually expanding.

The Criminal Code currently sets out an offence of espionage that is punishable by 25 years' imprisonment.

The main offence applies where someone communicates or makes available information that concerns Australia's security or defence. The person must intend to
prejudice Australia's security or defence, or advantage another country's security or defence. Under the proposed changes, this offence will attract a maximum
penalty of life imprisonment.

Where a person recklessly endangers Australia's security or defence, this will be punishable by the current penalty.

The new espionage offences will apply to possessing or receiving information, in addition to communicating it. They will protect a broader range of
information, including unclassified material.

Other new offences, punishable by 15 years' imprisonment, will target preparation for espionage and the theft of trade secrets.

Foreign interference

Proposed offences for foreign interference will target conduct not ordinarily considered to be espionage or treason.

Currently, the federal offence of treason describes very rare and serious conduct, such as assassinating or capturing the Queen or prime minister.

These new offences will target covert, deceptive or undisclosed conduct that is directed, funded, supervised or undertaken on behalf of a foreign interest.
The penalties will range between ten and 20 years' imprisonment.

To constitute foreign interference, the conduct must be intended to:

serve the intelligence purposes of a foreign actor

harm Australia's national security

influence the exercise or performance of a democratic or political right, or

influence a government or political process.

Other new offences will target the support or funding of foreign intelligence agencies. These will be similar to existing crimes for supporting or funding
terrorist organisations.

Are the new offences needed?

The changes will make it easier to prosecute foreign nationals who intentionally interfere with Australia's business, political or foreign policy
interests.

Where such influence cannot strictly be described as impacting on security or defence, successful prosecution under the existing espionage or treason
offences is very difficult.

The government's other justifications are much weaker. The current espionage offences already extend beyond the communication of information to making,
obtaining or copying sensitive records. The Crimes Act includes offences that are triggered when an Australian public official discloses official secrets or
obtained in the course of their employment.

What are the risks?

The proposed offences will target some conduct that should clearly be a serious criminal offence, such as intentionally supporting a foreign intelligence
agency.

However, the proposed laws go well beyond such clear cases to target a broad and vague range of conduct affecting Australian interests. This includes
possessing unclassified information and any deceptive or undisclosed conduct that influences government processes.

Most importantly, the proposed changes pose risks to whistleblowers and Australian media organisations. These risks were compounded in 2014 by
changes to national security legislation in response to the threat of foreign fighters.

A journalist could face serious penalties under the proposed espionage offences for receiving information leaked by a government official or intelligence
whistleblower, before they even decide to publish that information.

It seems the information need not even be classified for the penalties to apply, provided making the information available would benefit a foreign country
or organisation.

The government needs to ensure that journalists publishing sensitive information in the public interest will not face criminal prosecution for espionage
or other federal criminal offences. This should be done by drafting legal protections for journalists who act in a professional capacity in the public
interest.

Assurances from Attorney-General George Brandis that journalists will not be prosecuted for doing their job are not enough.

The proposed laws should be viewed not only as a response to increasing Chinese influence in Australia, but also as symptomatic of a post-Snowden crackdown,
in which all potentially embarrassing information about government is closely protected.

Similar debates about expanded espionage offences and press freedom have already taken place in the UK. These debates confirm that "national security" is
no longer simply about physical threats like terrorism or traditional forms of spying.

Increasingly, the language of national security is invoked to protect a government's broader interests - political, business and economic.

Keiran Hardy, Lecturer, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Member, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted to repeal the rules that were put in place under the Obama Administration in 2015, which
were aimed to protect internet access from abuse of speed restrictions from internet service providers of specific services whilst prioritizing
others, and to keep the internet open and fair. Essentially, the rules were to ensure net neutrality was protected.

Freedom Publishers Union advocates for net neutrality and condemns the latest vote by the FCC to repeal the rules. We believe the internet should
be free and accessible to everyone, without restriction, censorship, interference and/or speed manipulation.

The repeal of the rules are set to favor big telecommunications companies and internet service providers. The path is now clear for service
providers to prioritize specific services over others. Freedom Publishers Union Director, Chris McGimpsey-Jones says, "It is unclear as to how this
will affect consumers at this early stage. But it is almost certain that the repeal will make it more difficult for smaller service providers on the
internet deliver their goods against the giants of the internet - Google, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix.". The internet delivery power these four
giants of Silicon Valley hold is a growing concern. Whilst Netflix still has some competition, moreso now an agreement has been made for Disney to
acquire a major chunk of 21st Century Fox in an effort to compete directly with Netflix, Google, Amazon and Facebook have almost nil competition.
Now that net neutrality has effectively been killed by the FCC, their power is guaranteed to increase. This will accelerate the challenges startups
face when trying to grow their services and make it more difficult for them to compete for their space on the internet, as internet service providers
are now free to prioritize service delivery to Google, Facebook and Netflix (or any other service they reach a commercial deal with). This is a slap
in the face for both startups and consumers, and will undoubtedly result in startups and smaller service providers being locked out of the internet
fast lane.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to advocate for a free and open internet - net neutrality. We are not alone. There have been millions of internet
activists speak out on the potential dangers of killing net neutrality rules, as have many of the large internet companies and service providers. Chris
adds, "The FCC outright ignore the purpose of the fundamental design and foundations of why the internet was created. Instead, they view it as a money
making machine of which they insist on handing control to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.". These are the big three internet service providers that deliver
a huge chunk of internet access to consumers in the US. Chris continues, "Instead, the internet should remain free and neutral, and data should be
allowed to flow freely in an organic nature, with absolute minimal regulation. Where regulation is applicable and necessary, and that's another matter
for argument, that regulation should not include placing impediments against net neutrality. As someone who is actively and aggressively involved with
fighting for digital rights, I view this as a big sticking up of the middle finger by the FCC, accompanied with a big f**k you.".

Freedom Publishers Union expects there will be much negative feedback that follows from the FCC decision. We also expect to see legal action launched
against the FCC. Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has referred to the telecommunications companies as the "online gatekeepers".
Jay continues on to state, "nobody should think that network neutrality is dead. We at the ACLU and our allies will be fighting back at the federal,
state and local level to restore the protections that the FCC has now eviscerated. And there is plenty that citizens can do. But the clock is now
ticking because Americans may soon begin to see negative changes in the internet they've always known.".

Chris of Freedom Publishers Union concludes, "The fight is not over. Net neutrality can still be upheld.".

The aforementioned details that emerged of the financial data of American citizens being illegally accessed is slightly disturbing, but Freedom
Publishers Union does not believe that it is cause for too much concern. This can be justified by the fact that it gained very little follow up
media coverage. And the Buzzfeed publication itself was of questionable quality journalism. Instead, the publication was typical of Buzzfeed's
usual hyper point-and-print method of presentation. But that's not to say they've brought up an important issue which requires closer analysis.

Questionable access to this type of data is what happens when different committees of the US Congress write laws unintentionally (or with
intentional forethought) don't coordinate their legislation to the extent they should. Especially under what Congress would consider 'crisis'
situations, like the common response to 'terrorism' or situations which are quickly, yet unnecessarily deemed a threat to 'national security'.

Money laundering and other financial mischief has become a catch-all for financial transactions that don't smell right to investigators from a
wide variety of law enforcement agencies, investigative departments within the banking sector, federal intelligence agencies and the many other
organizations involved with investigating cases of money laundering and other illegal financial activity.

Lest we forget the Treasury, which has responsibility for the accounting for the US Government - including the ability to print money. Which is
not the same as the Federal Reserve, which has direct responsibility for the economy outside of the Government. Then there's the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and the now dissolved Office
of Thrift Supervision - those are just some of the federal agencies. Every US State also has the same panoply of agencies that don't report to the
US Government. Worse still, there are areas of financial law that are truly gray areas where depending on a multitude of factors, a crime may or
may not have been committed.

It's a financial oversight minefield, yet with very good intention. But the legal/illegal access of financial data and sharing of the data between
these oversight agencies in cases of legitimate investigation into genuine illegal financial activity, is equal a minefield with the after-effects
creating just more minefields. The question of legality spreads like a virus.

This must all be taken into perspective, before anyone can begin to assess whether access to financial data is concluded as legal or illegal.
All of these agencies have some responsibility for monitoring financial crimes. Which of course, involves both identifying a financial crime and
then enforcing the criminal statute. And therein lies the problem: The necessary information to identifying and prosecuting a financial criminal
is their finances and their identity. Pure and simple. Thus, you're going to get overlap in finding this information, and in the process, you will
have agencies that are looking at data that is potentially outside of their oversight jurisdiction, but required for them to do their
investigation.

A certain amount of backdoor co-operation between agencies is hardly unknown. Until the advent of data mining, this wasn't even a concern to
defense attorneys. It was always assumed to happen. The required financial brief and accompanying identification details would be initially logged
and eventually the correct agency would get the data and collate it into an enforcement context allowing them to act on the final gathered
information and data.

In order for any enforcement to work today, each and every transaction in the chain from start to end needs to be identified, reviewed and traced
before the actual criminal activity is identified.

Many of these schemes involve regular, everyday citizens that get sucked into part of that chain whether the transactions be for work or private
purpose. Many of which will appear to be completely normal unless you find them in the longer chain of tracking the activity trail. This is
precisely why we have all these different agencies looking into individual bank accounts, which is now being labeled "illegal".

An ugly combination of the hairball of unco-operative laws, the separation of expertise into isolated agencies, and as much as anything, the
unjustified media hype surrounding all these actions portray the government as snooping on your $20 withdrawals from your bank. This is not
exactly true and must be completely examined and put into proper context.

It could be the simple result of someone (or a group of individuals in any number of the aforementioned departments) may be either disobeying
the law because another law requires them to, disobeying a law intentionally, or just doing gray area research in order to legitimately carry out
their investigation in an effort of genuine pursuit of criminals. It doesn't really matter to the individuals swept up in the financial data
analysis, as they are just anonymous points of data in a much, much larger pattern of possible illegal activity.

So the whole "If you are not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to hide" statement, actually does apply in this case.

There's two vital questions which must be asked: Is this a consequence of too zealously pursing illegal activities that suck millions of innocent
citizens into the confusion? Or is this the price we (Americans specifically) have to pay to get the criminals that are allegedly ruining our
lives?

Finally, we propose a possible afterthought and ask further: Is this actually making us safer? Or is it just another consequence of modern-day
prohibition where everyone is assumed a criminal?

September 19, 2017, Wikileaks dumped an unusual set of documents related to mass-surveillance programs inside Russia.

The Wikileaks Press Release states that, "While the surveillance of communication traffic is a global phenomena, the legal and technological
framework of its operation is different for each country. Russia's laws - especially the new Yarovaya Law - make literally no distinction between
lawful interception and mass-surveillance by state intelligence authorities without court orders.".

It continues by stating, "Russian communication providers are required by Russian law to install the so-called SORM components for surveillance
provided by the FSB, at their own expense. The SORM infrastructure is developed and deployed in Russia with close co-operation between the FSB, the
Interior Ministry of Russia and Russian surveillance contractors.".

Information provided to Freedom Publishers Union details SORM as the technical infrastructure for the Russian surveillance networks and is operated
on a national scale. It dates back to 1995 and has evolved from SORM-1 (capturing telephone and cell phone communications) and SORM-2 in 1999
(interception and collection of internet traffic), to the current SORM-3. SORM now collects information from all forms of Russian communications
networks, and provides long-term storage of all information and data, including the possibility of storage of actual recordings and locations. The
infrastructure was expanded in 2014 to include social media platforms. The Ministry of Communications ordered companies to install new networking and
technical equipment with Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) capability. In 2016, SORM-3 added additional classified regulations that apply to all internet
service providers operating inside Russia. The European Court for Human Rights has previously deemed Russia's SORM legislation in breach of the
European Convention on Human Rights, in 2015 (Zakharov v. Russia).

Whilst most of the Wikileaks documents are in Russian, there are a couple of English language documents in the collection which come from PETER-SERVICE,
a Russian billing services provider and now a major software supplier of for the Russian mobile telecommunications industry. According to information
provided by Wikileaks, technology developed and supplied by PETER-SERVICE extend beyond traditional billing services and into mass-surveillance.
PETER-SERVICE goes beyond simply complying with strict Russian surveillance laws and is apparently initiating partnerships and establishing commercial
business opportunities with Russia's state intelligence departments.

Data retention is a crucial piece of the surveillance program operating inside Russia. According to a Data Retention System document released by
Wikileaks, the Data Retention System service "is an add-on product for the Core Subsystems of SPS Family of Products (SVC_BASE). It provides access to
the main functions of PETER-SERVICE SVC_BASE by means of the web interface". Details inside the documents cited by Freedom Publishers Union include
meta-data search functions, filtering and search export options. The descriptive details resemble that of what we learned from documents provided by
former intelligence and security contractor, Edward Snowden, about the PRISM and ICReach programs which are part of the mass-surveillance network
operated by the National Security Agency (NSA). Previous evidence published suggests that some NSA operated programs extend accessibility to fellow
agencies throughout the ¿Five Eyes' intelligence network - USA/UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand - and to the CIA, then filtered all the way through to
the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Access is vast and wide. Therefore, there is every possibility that the Russian mass-surveillance network
that operates inside the country will have the same level of data accessibility and free sharing of citizen's meta-data throughout Russian Government
departments, primarily the FSB.

Meta-data is required to be collected and stored for a duration of 3 years. According to PETER-SERVICE, their data retention system components can
handle 500,000,000 connections per day, in one cluster. The data retention laws and required time-frame for the data to be stored is not unusual and
has stark similarities to meta-data laws in Western nations.

As PETER-SERVICE operates in the Russian mobile telecommunications sector, it has put itself in a unique market position to be able to collect meta-data,
cell phone communications data, cell device identification information, network connections information and cell phone tracking through cell phone tower
connection monitoring. We do not know exactly the types of data that is being monitored and collected, but potentially, the amount of data could be huge
and resemble that of other global mass-surveillance programs that operate.

The Russian documents release is a game changer on how we approach the notion of mass-surveillance because now we have learned that these programs that
effectively spy on a country's citizens are operating on a global scale - inside all types of oppressive, repressive, communist and democratic
regimes.

It's no longer safe to assume any country is free of mass-surveillance. We need to stop focusing on any given country and start talking about surveillance
generically. But we must also be careful to not accept that mass and dragnet surveillance on sweeping scale is the norm and we must always raise immediate
concerns over potential violations of privacy and civil liberties.

Ultimately, a set of United Nations guidelines on how all mass-surveillance initiating countries should disclose and monitor their compliance would be
appropriate. However, Freedom Publishers Union still believes it is still almost impossible to achieve any kind of United Nations standards for surveillance
oversight and transparency, simply because many nations still are not publicly admitting that many of these programs actually exist and are operating.
Despite confirmation from the many documents that have been published which prove their existence and continued operation, and despite questionable legal
right to operate.

Privacy in nearly all aspects of life is no longer possible, so it is time that we focus on establishing what the different expectations of privacy are, how
they're defined, and how the scope of each can be legally protected from abuse and whether lawful and realistic transparency and public disclosure can be
applied. Because it's the abuse that is the driver of our fear against mass-surveillance and fear of losing our privacy.

We need to define what abuse of privacy means in each of these legal and illegal instances and continue to provide input and feedback to governments and
political legislators on how to define abuse and misuse, and how to appropriately use laws to prevent abuse and compensate those who are victims of any
actual abuse that occurs.

The Russian-sponsored revelations are effectively the launchpad needed to reboot public discourse on the dangers of mass-surveillance, the dangers of
passing laws that permit (and in some cases force) dragnet surveillance through hardware and software data gathering technologies and also the lack of
sufficient oversight backed up by meaningful transparency.

It is no longer about throwing out the message that surveillance should be stopped completely. Ultimately, we believe that it should be. But realistically,
surveillance must be structured according to our aforementioned points of oversight, transparency and accountability for abuse.

October 27, 2017 | Australian National Identification
Database is an Extension of Existing Mass-Surveillance Programs

The Australian Government is pushing its privacy attacking agenda onto the State Governments, in an effort to harbor support which would see the
possible implementation of a national identification database.

As Freedom Publishers Union understands it, the national identification database which would require the complete co-operation by State Governments
to proceed and citizen's identities and accompanying information collated by using current photo identification from drivers licenses, proof of age
identification and passports.

We condemn the move and deem it unnecessary. The Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is claiming that the creation of the database is
necessary in Australia's fight against local terrorism. He continues to advocate that a national identification database would greatly benefit law
enforcement and intelligence agencies in their fight against extremist behavior, particularly in events of mass gathering of citizens.

We believe the creation of a national identification database has major security concerns which need addressing which have been raised by privacy
advocates and civil libertarians, yet seemingly are being ignored and brushed aside by the Government. Instead, the Government presses ahead by claiming
that it's an important issue of national security. Furthermore, the Australian Government with initial support from the various State Governments, are
making public claims that in the interest of national security, the national identification database must be established as national security is more
important than civil liberties.

We dispute this claim, directly. Nothing is beyond maintaining the civil liberties of a democratic country's citizens. It's these very civil liberties
that exist within the foundations of democracy which makes democracy function so well. Particularly in Australia, where our democracy is the envy of the
world.

Legislation has already been implemented in Australia which is directly targeted at combating terrorism - locally and abroad. Some of the current
legislation we have opposed as civil liberties have already been impeded. Establishing a national identification database is a step too far and is moving
beyond fighting terrorism and into technological territory of monitoring the behavior of innocent citizens who simply go about their daily business,
without harm.

We also fear further attacks on encryption and security technology is next on the agenda for Malcolm Turnbull and the Australian Government's continued
attacks on Australian's rights to privacy.

Freedom Publishers Union makes no apologies for upholding civil liberties and rights to privacy. We see a national identification database as a primary
centralized target for international hacking groups, who seek easy access to mass data on Australian citizens, through sub-standard computer security.

Systems and networks handled by the Australian Government contractors do not have a good track record when it comes to maintaining strong security.
There have been breaches in the past - some acknowledged, some unacknowledged. In some case, details of alleged breaches have to some degree been denied
or even ignored as nothing serious. A classic case of 'nothing to see here'.

We do not trust that security surrounding any such central identification database will see any further enhanced security than what Australian Government
systems are currently protected by. The security is lapse and citizens that face their photo identification and information being stored in a core database
with sub-standard security should be concerned - purely on merits of privacy concerns.

Additionally, Australia is a democracy which comes with natural civil liberties. The country's intelligence community and network of surveillance
programs, which is essentially connected to the 'Five Eyes' mass-surveillance network, have become victim to surveillance creep. Programs are established
with good intention, but unfortunately get integrated into more extensive programs and information further collated into what essentially becomes a
mass-surveillance program similar to what we've seen exposed in the past by Edward Snowden, Wikileaks and other media outlets - programs run by the NSA,
GCHQ and the CIA.

Australia's intelligence agency, ASIO, is also a partner to these major US and UK-based mass-surveillance initiating agencies who thrive on data gathered
by dragnet surveillance programs. It seems Australia has simply followed the global mass-surveillance trend, which continue to operate, gather more data and
become more complex, despite governments touting their efforts to reign in these often illegal programs.

Freedom Publishers Union sees an Australian national identification database as an extension of more extensive dragnet programs and therefore can not
support such creation of such an unnecessary and unjustified central database, as it directly impedes on civil liberties and outright breaches the privacy
of Australian citizens.

October 9, 2017 | Let's Face It, We'll Be No Safer with a National Facial Recognition Database

A commitment to share the biometric data of most Australians - including your driving licence photo - agreed at Thursday's Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) meeting will result in a further erosion of our privacy.

That sharing is not necessary. It will be costly. But will it save us from terrorism? Not all, although it will give people a false sense of
comfort.

Importantly, it will allow politicians and officials to show that they are doing something, in a climate where a hunt for headlines demands the
appearance of action.

Your biometric data

Biometric data used in fingerprint and facial recognition systems is indelible. It can be used in authoritative identity registers, featured on
identity documents such as passports and driver licences.

It can be automatically matched with data collected from devices located in airports, bus and train stations, retail malls, court buildings,
prisons, sports facilities and anywhere else we could park a networked camera.

Australia's state and territory governments have built large biometric databases through registration of people as drivers - every licence has a
photograph of the driver. The national government has built large databases through registration for passports, aviation/maritime security and other
purposes.

Irrespective of your consent to uses beyond those for which the picture was taken, the governments now have a biometric image of most Australians,
and the ability to search the images.

COAG announced that the governments will share that data in the name of security.

Sharing data with who?

Details of the sharing are very unclear. This means we cannot evaluate indications that images will be captured in both public and private places.
For example, in retail malls and libraries or art galleries - soft targets for terrorism - rather than in streets and secure buildings such as
Parliament House.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has responded to initial criticism by clarifying that matching will not involve "live" CCTV.

But the history of Australian surveillance law has been a matter of creep, with step-by-step expansion of what might initially have been an innocuous
development. When will law enforcement agencies persuade their ministers to include live public or private CCTV for image matching?

We cannot tell which officials will be accessing the data and what safeguards will be established to prevent misuse. Uncertainty about safeguards is
worrying, given the history of police and other officials inappropriately accessing law enforcement databases on behalf of criminals or to stalk a former
partner.

The sharing occurs in a nation where Commonwealth, state and territory privacy law is inconsistent. That law is weakly enforced, in part because watchdogs
such as the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) are under-resourced, threatened with closure or have clashed with senior
politicians.

Australia does not have a coherent enforceable right to privacy. Instead we have a threadbare patchwork of law (including an absence of a discrete privacy
statute in several jurisdictions).

The new arrangement has been foreshadowed by governments over several years. It can be expected to creep, further eroding privacy and treating all citizens
as suspects.

Software and hardware providers will be delighted: there's money to be made by catering to our fears. But we should be asking some hard questions about the
regime and questioning COAG's statement.

Let's avoid a privacy car crash

Will sharing and expansion of the biometric network - a camera near every important building, many cameras on every important road - save us from
terrorism? The answer is a resounding no. Biometrics, for example, seems unlikely to have saved people from the Las Vegas shooter.

Will sharing be cost effective? None of the governments have a great track record with major systems integration. The landscape is littered with projects
that went over budget, didn't arrive on time or were quietly killed off.

Think the recent Census and Centrelink problems, and the billion dollar bust up known as the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record.

It won't be improved by a new national ID card to fix the Medicare problem.

Is the sharing proportionate? One answer is to look at experience in India, where the Supreme Court has comprehensively damned that nation's ambitious
Aadhaar biometric scheme that was meant to solve security, welfare and other problems.

The Court - consistent with decisions in other parts of the world - condemned the scheme as grossly disproportionate: a disregard of privacy and of the
dignity of every citizen.

Is sharing likely to result in harms, particularly as the biometric network grows and grows? The answer again is yes. One harm, disregarded by our
opportunistic politicians, is that all Australians and all visitors will be regarded as suspects.

Much of the data for matching will be muddy - some street cameras, for example, are fine resting places for pigeons - and of little value.

As with the mandatory metadata retention scheme, the more data (and more cameras) we have the bigger trove of indelible information for hackers. Do not
expect the OAIC or weak state privacy watchdogs (which in some jurisdictions do not exist) to come to the rescue.

As a society we should demand meaningful consultation about official schemes that erode our rights. We should engage in critical thinking rather than
relying on headlines that reflect political opportunism and institutional self-interest.

The incoherent explanation and clarifications should concern everyone, irrespective of whether they have chosen to be on Facebook - and even if they have
nothing to hide and will never be mistaken for someone else.

Last week, the NY Times reported of new efforts underway within The White House, to garner the appropriate measures required to remove any legal
restrictions currently imposed for operations of unmanned drones used by the CIA for air-strikes, in Afghanistan.

There are three questions that require closer analysis by international academics. Right now, not enough questions are being asked by academics
with global influence. This story was only covered by the NY Times, as most other reputable media outlets ignored the story. And the smaller agencies
that did publish information on the story simply produced recycled content from the original NY Times piece. It's time that we start to begin asking
the most vital and fundamental questions as to the role the US plays in the world.

1. Is the US really in a position to declare itself the world's 'police force', engaging 'criminals' at the regime level around the world?

2. Is this simply justification for being war-mongering racists?

3. Are we continuing to pursue the Taliban and al Qaeda because they have political resonance in America, or because they are a real danger to
global stability?

As the continuing terrorist attacks in London and wider-Europe illustrate, these terrorist groups and loyal followers are going to do this no matter
what. Whether they are religious zealots or simply anarchist extremists, terrorist acts will continue to attempt to disrupt our modern way of life and
our very democracy, as long as there are malcontent people.

The Jonestown massacre of 1978 in Guyana, or the Aum Shinrikyo subway sarin attack of 1995 in Tokyo - there is no redeeming aspect of a cult that
exists solely to kill others, just because they believe they are better off or live the better way of life. The real question isn't can we take action
to stop terrorism, because we can't. As long as there are malcontent people, there will be terrorists. Historical evidence cements the theory. What we
need to know, is can we use military actions - overt or covert - to significantly reduce terror attacks.

If al Qaeda is the fan club for terrorists (they get their membership card, stickers for their notebook and cars, and a 20-page instruction manual
that gives them a public brand for their actions), then destroying the club house is probably worthwhile.

If you are view al Qaeda as simply a Creative Commons-type service that anyone can use (like a hash-tag) then it's pointless to try and destroy
leadership, because there isn't any. It very much resembles the concept of the Anonymous computer hacker collective. You deal with them like any other
brand that you want to eliminate - you dilute the relevance of the brand by shifting the exposure of the brand to totally meaningless gestures. If they
try to claim responsibility for a terrorist act, refuse to credit them and give it to someone else with a more specific meaning focusing on the individual
who carried out the attack.

Media have a huge ethical responsibility here and must take action. Unfortunately, we believe that won't happen. News will continue to report terrorist
attacks by brand name as it grabs viewer's immediate attention and we will continue to use military options. Not because military options work. But it's
one of the few things governments can point to and say, "we're working on it".

Just like the TSA searches at airports, the symbolism of inconvenience makes people think 'something' is being done, even though the actual activity does
absolutely nothing to improve security procedures over previous methods.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that drones do have a role in military conflict. However, we also have a strict view that they must be used for specific
targets which are based on very reliable source information. CIA drones are too easily used as a tool to exclude all aspects of human responsibility for
civilian casualties, when they occur. The fact can not be ignored that they will occur. When civilians are killed, then the CIA, the US Military or any other
government associated killing force must act, own up and someone must take full responsibility for civilian casualties from drones.

Freedom Publishers Union fears the time that the United Nations (UN) could negotiate any kind of sustainable and effectively peaceful settlement with
North Korea ended back in the early 1960's, when North Korea raised their million-man army.

If military conflict is to eventuate between North Korea and the United States of America (USA), perhaps with assistance from its allies, then it will
likely be a very short war and remain conventional and without any nuclear weapons being used by either side, other than rhetorical threats to the effect
of deterrence. The issue is not that the USA, China, Russia or any UN coalition force could not defeat North Korea, but the real problem is South
Korea.

South Korea is one of the major manufacturing powers in the world, yet unfortunately happens to share its border with a country that has the ability to
pretty much annihilate the South in a matter of minutes, without any use of nuclear weapons. North Korea has a massive amount of troops and equipment
right on the North/South Demilitarized Zone. The artillery alone is capable of destroying 80% of the South Korean capital of Seoul and the surrounding
area in about one hour, with severe punishment delivered within just the few first minutes. Effectively, this holds the South to ransom in addition to
its key ally, the USA.

The million-man army of the North can literally be across the border and enter the South and into what would be left of Seoul within hours, not days,
with the potential to extend through the rest of the country in just weeks.

Freedom Publishers Union believe China and Russia are the reasonable ones at the table, because they realize what the instant loss of South Korea would
mean. China and Russia do massive trade and business with the South. Even more than the USA and Australia, of which do privately recognize the instant
threat posed to the South, but are shy to go on public record of the acknowledgement. The dark realization is that unless the rest of the world is willing
to write-off South Korea and spend multiple trillions to rebuild it, there will be no action against North Korea that we can foresee.

Whilst China and Russia have given support for some important sanctions, they are on record at the UN for not increasing some sanctions and actually
relaxing them if North Korea sits still for a while. Additionally, tough sanctions proposed by the UN have effectively been watered-down by China and
Russia in effort to gain their support through the UN but to also protect important trade with the North. Both countries have sternly warned the USA and
its allies against launching any military action against North Korea. At least to preemptive strikes. If North Korea was to attack first, then it might
change the language of China and Russia, and indeed may result in actual launch of military action from them. To what extent exactly, would remain a
mystery.

To be frank, Kim Jong-un is not an idiot. His actions and behavior may appear to present him as an idiot, but his strategy is absolutely brilliant and to
a large degree, is working. He understands very well that he can rant and rave to keep the constant media attention focused on his country and dictatorship.
He has the power and is using it to its fullest potential on the global stage, albeit not in a peaceful way.

Kim also knows that the only card he holds is the potential of obliterating South Korea within just minutes of any outbreak of war in the region. This goes
to explain the sudden rush by the North to master nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Before their nuclear programs came to realization, North Korea would
still be able to destroy a large part of the South before any allied response could follow. But that would most likely guarantee that the any allied response
would certainly use nuclear arsenal and send the North back to the stone age almost immediately and carry on to disassemble what was left of the country's
dictatorship regime and handing it to a democratic South.

A bi-lateral nuclear exchange is a completely different story. Short range nuclear weapons - even carried in trucks and detonated after the initial invasion
- would make South Korea unrecoverable. It would literally be the world creating a new Israel for the remaining Koreans, as well as investing in the massive
cleanup of hydrogen bomb devastation on such a scale never attempted to this very day, and a scenario we remain confident we will never see.

There is another ugly alternative on the Korean peninsula. And it's not good. South Korea could possibly be utterly destroyed at some point, because there is
no possible way to prevent it. Even with the allies using tactical nuclear weapons to try and clear the border threat - which is actually becoming the most
realistic option to solve the immediate border problem if you ignore the flow-on problems such a response would generate - would be the only way to delay ultimate
destruction is to force the South Koreans to just accept that they are living on a nuclear fault line and reach out to their neighbors and make genuine efforts
to achieve peace and acceptance. But it also means that the South would continue to survive and would open up the potential for trade with the North, which would
increase their standard of living and eventually integrate them into a single trade entity.

There was a moment in independent media history when I was a staunch advocate against all forms of web advertising and paid news subscriptions.
I thought the formula was just all wrong and thought it would be death of media and news on the internet as we knew it. It was some years ago, but
to be fair, my strict opinion of the time was probably justified and reflective of most people's opinions towards the concept of paying for news.
Boy how times have changed. I can unashamedly declare that I have gradually formed a view which could be deemed polar opposite of the view that I
used to have. I now proudly pay for a number of news subscriptions and for those services, among others, I actually allow web advertising through
my ad-blocking browser extensions. Yes, a view completely of opposites. Shock.

It's difficult to pinpoint a single time in history that I could state that my opinion changed. Rather, it's been a gradual shift through a
combination of reflection of the media industry as a whole, careful analysis of the differences between mainstream commercial news and quality
journalism and how journalists and their work are both appreciated and not appreciated by the audience. As a result of my slow, yet careful and
calculated reflection which has been an assessment drawn out over the last two to three years, I've come to a better understanding of all things
media, the true benefits of targeted web advertising for respective media agencies that actually deserve the revenue they receive through advertising
and also how funds received through paid subscriptions not only benefits the quality of journalism produced, but also carries on to breed and nurture
further quality journalism.

If I was to break it all down even further, I could say that paying for news is paying the journalists for their work and tireless effort. It's all
about creating a and sustaining a creative media platform. If you don't show your appreciation for the hard work, then there will no longer be quality
journalists in media to produce such quality content and instead we will see news being produced, recycled, facts twisted, published and re-published
by robots. The sad fact is, this is already happening with some online media producers. Somewhere in my complicated unexplainable personal media
analysis algorithm, I guess this point was also included to bring me to any kind of conclusive judgment of why we should be paying for news.

One can present the obvious counter-argument of why would you pay for news when you can still read it for free. Well, it's a fair argument to make
as no one can deny there are still many free news sites remaining online and don't look like they're going to disappear anytime soon. Still, if you
are one of these people to assume the position that they're always going to remain online, remain free and regarded as quality journalism, then you're
taking both a naive view towards the media industry and showing not only lack of appreciation for proper quality journalism which is fact based and
properly researched, but also shows your obvious display of no appreciation for the services you consume - most likely every single day.

Running a media agency or publishing business is expensive. Although it mat not seem so obvious when you are staring into the glow of a computer
screen, everyone must understand that all aspects of the operations cost money. That money has to come from somewhere. It must come from a combination
of commercial interests through targeted advertising and paid subscriptions. I will refrain from publicly naming the news agencies and websites that I
now subscribe to, in effort to avoid promoting one agency over another and to also avoid being shamed to taking a particular media bias or political
media perspective. In fact, it's the opposite of that. My own selection of media subscriptions that I have chosen to support covers a range of
left/right political bias and spreads across a national Australian and international spectrum.

I also wish to make the point that if you pay for news through subcription services, it not only has benefits for the media agency producing the news
you consume and retains the quality of the journalistic efforts, but your support through subscription also has a greater personal meaning when you
visit that website. When reading content through paid subscription, you begin to appreciate the words you are reading. They almost take on a completely
different meaning and you begin to respect journalists instead of taking it for granted.

The benefits are apparent for journalists, publishers, consumers and the entire media industry.

This Editorial is written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, who is the Editor-in-Chief of Freedom Publishers Union.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

September 8, 2017 | Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

"Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" is also more commonly known as "The Google Manifesto", first cicrulated as an internal memo within the ranks
of Google offices. The manifesto is dated July 2017 and since its original publication on the Gizmodo website, the author has been revealed as
US-based Google software engineer, James Damore.

The manifesto specifically outlines Damore's concerns on Google's diversity policies and argues that Google continues to shut down conversations
about diversity within the Silicon Valley company.

Since the release of the manifesto, Damore has been fired from Google. We believe the manifesto is important in the issues that it raises
and should be published, not censored. We also believe that the firing of Damore was completely unjustified. Although Damore's actions probably did
violate Google's employee code of conduct, we think the actions of firing the employee for his actions of speaking out justify the issues he
outlines in the manifesto - speak up, and you get shut down.

Freedom Publishers Union has published the most complete and unedited version of the text of the manifesto available, below.

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in
representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion
about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately
our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public
response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very
important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility
of being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR

Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offence with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the
antithesis of psychological safety.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression.

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression.

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of
women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who
disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion
about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it's a perspective that
desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google's biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political
orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences,
media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

Compassion for the weak

Disparities are due to injustices

Humans are inherently co-operative

Change is good (unstable)

Open

Idealist

Right Biases

Respect for the strong/authority

Disparities are natural and just

Humans are inherently competitive

Change is dangerous (stable)

Closed

Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the
right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing
(deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees
and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google's left bias has created a politically
correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and
authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential
treatment and the authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and
women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognisant of this, but it's far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just socially constructed because:

They're universal across human cultures

They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

The underlying traits are highly heritable

They're exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the
distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't
see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so
you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Men's higher drive for status

We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require
long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail.
Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal
mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to
address them to increase women's representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas,
but I think it's still instructive to list them:

Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately,
there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students
into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Women on average are more co-operative

Allow those exhibiting co-operative behaviour to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe
there's more we can do. This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self
reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done in
education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does
this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.

Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average

Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to
be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.

The male gender role is currently inflexible

Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the
male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably
because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For
each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimising for Google ¿ with Google's diversity being a
component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too
much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its
allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google's biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation,
Google has created several discriminatory practices:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]

A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates

Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction
(clear confirmation bias)

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership
that what we're doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably
harm Google.

Why we're blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs
counter to the "God > humans > environment" hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences
between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren't on the right. Unfortunately, the
overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what's being studied, and
maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google's left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which
we're using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved
because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more co-operative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs,
fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he's labelled as a misogynist
and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women's oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are
often a case of "grass being greener on the other side"; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive
PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn't harbored the violent leftists protests that we're seeing at universities,
the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that
minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain
ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just
another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees
as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims."

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and
significant ways in which people view things differently.

In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open
hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in
conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google's biases.

I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther
reaching than that.

I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how
our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I
outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women's
representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

There's currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those
outside its ideological echo chamber.

These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.

I realise that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily
backfire since they incentivise illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair
discrimination.

We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity.

Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for
those more removed from UX.

De-emphasise empathy.

I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why
people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy ¿ feeling another's pain ¿ causes us to focus on anecdotes, favour
individuals similar to us, and harbour other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason
about the facts.

Prioritise intention.

Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally
positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies.
Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that
safety by judging unintentional transgressions.

Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more
accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

We haven't been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or
backlash, especially if made mandatory.

Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation
is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.

Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive
to new information than the training suggests (I'm not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual
inaccuracy of what's said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google's Mountain View campus, I can't speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly
value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by "tech", I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally
universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender
or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for
certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation
OKRs can incentivise the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became
clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class
warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men.
Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink
our stereotypes around power.

[10] "The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with
problems on their own. Men's problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from
bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak."

[11] Political correctness is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are
socially disadvantaged or discriminated against," which makes it clear why it's a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

August 31, 2017 | Xenix: The Microsoft Unix That Once Was

One would not normally associate Microsoft with Unix. While Microsoft's interest(s) in Unix may remain minimal in recent times, history
tells a very different story. Let us take a quick journey down memory lane, back to the late 1970's and into the early-mid 80's.

In 1979, Microsoft formed an agreement with AT&T Corporation to license Unix from AT&T. Then Microsoft licensed out its renamed Unix to
OEM vendors, including Intel, Tandy and SCO. Those companies then ported it to their own hardware architectures and requirements. Microsoft
was hit by a legal problem of the ¿UNIX¿ name not being able to be used. Therefore, Microsoft was forced to come up with their own
distribution name. Xenix was chosen. To put it simply, AT&T licensed Unix to Microsoft and then Microsoft passed on the same Unix software
re-branded as Xenix.

Microsoft's intention was to take Xenix to the 16bit microcomputer market. The initial port of Xenix was to the Zilog Z8000 series and then
followed on the the Intel 8086/8088 architecture. By the time Microsoft reached the 7th edition, it was incorporating elements of BSD. Xenix
became the most widely installed base of any Unix distribution. This was largely due to the continued popularity of the relatively inexpensive
x86 processor. There was lots of modifications being done to Xenix by many different companies. Microsoft Xenix originally run on the PDP-11.
It was then ported to the Zilog Z8001. Altos ported it to their Intel 8086 based computers. Tandy Corporation ported it to their 68000 based
computers. SCO released a port to the IBM PC in September 1983. There was even a port for the 68000 based Apple Lisa.

During this time, Xenix was based on AT&T's Unix System III. Xenix version 2.0 was released in 1985, based on Unix System V. Microsoft then
released the updated 2.1.1, which added support for the Intel 80286 processor. There were several more compatibility releases based on Unix
System V. In 1987, SCO ported Xenix to the Intel 386 processor, which was a 32bit based chip. Xenix 2.3.1 was released and included support
for i386, SCSI and TCP/IP. SCO's Xenix system was the first 32bit operating system available for the x86 architecture.

By the mid 1980's, Microsoft signed an agreement with IBM to develop OS/2. The code name for the project would be called CP/DOS. As Microsoft
continued to develop CP/DOS with IBM, they gradually lost interest in Xenix. It took 2 years for IBM and Microsoft to develop the first release
of CP/DOS, which was released with the name OS/2. It was released in 1987. And in the same year, ownership of Xenix was transferred to SCO. The
agreement left Microsoft with a 25% ownership in SCO. History would repeat itself with Microsoft and OS/2. Microsoft lost interest in OS/2
development and focused its future and company strategy towards Windows NT. Despite Microsoft losing almost complete interest in Xenix, the
company is said to have used Xenix internally right up until as late as 1993.

SCO released SCO Unix which was based on System V Release 3. SCO had included a number of improvements over Xenix. Although, Xenix did remain
in the services line-up for SCO. AT&T and Sun Microsystems collaborated on merging portions of Xenix, BSD, SunOS and System V in to what became
System V Release 4. Although SCO Unix was based on System V Release 3, it did include most of the advanced features that were included to make
up System V Release 4. The last version of Xenix ever released was Xenix 2.3.4. At that time, Microsoft had little or nothing to do with the
release or development. The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) has gone through several transitions of company re-organization and re-structuring. The
former SCO and SCO Group are now owned by UnXis Inc. Derivatives of Xenix and SCO Unix continue on today and is now known as SCO OpenServer. It
could be considered that if Xenix development had of continued, OpenServer is what it would now have been. The latest OpenServer 6.0 release
still maintains backward-compatibility for software applications developed for Xenix 286 forwards.

Wikipedia proved to be a great resource for my research on Xenix and provided me with enough information to write this article. Anyone can go
to Wikipedia and read the whole story for themselves. But I have attempted to simplify the details in to a more friendly and readable format.
Personally, I find it an interesting story to find that early in Microsoft's history as a software company, for many years there was a serious
reliance on Unix based operating systems for its initial survival. It probably ensured their long-term survival too. Whether you agree with all
the past, present and future decisions that Microsoft made and continue to make, they're an interesting company to observe and one that always
presents an interesting story.

It's also worth noting although Microsoft don't necessarily have a Unix or Linux based system available nowadays, they do contribute plenty of
source code to the Linux kernel tree and other software projects. They have also rebooted their open-source initiatives in recent years with the
launch of an internal department titled Microsoft Open Technologies. Microsoft now provides access to native Ubuntu Linux running inside Windows
10, as a sub-system. And development continues to bring Fedora and OpenSUSE sub-systems into Windows 10 also.

Microsoft can't really be famed for actually releasing any source code for their own crucial software products and services. But things are
much better than they used to be. This is highlighted by the company throwing PowerShell source code out to the open-source community which has
resulted in PowerShell binaries running natively on Linux. Also worth noting is the open-sourcing of the ChakraCore JavaScript engine that
remains a core component of its Edge Browser package. These are all positive signs that Microsoft is beginning to accept that free and open-source
technology is a real and viable alternative to proprietary. The best thing we can at least expect is much better interoperability and compatibility
with FOSS alternatives.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Unixmen. The original author of the article is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and the article is
published under the Creative Commons license model. The article remains published on Unixmen, however the website breaks the terms of the Creative
Commons license and additionally, Unixmen has changed the name of the author and claims the article as their own. This is incorrect. Chris
McGimpsey-Jones is the original author of the article and it is now published to Freedom Publishers Union, with permission by the original author
and under Creative Commons license as permitted by the correct terms and conditions in accordance to the license.

August 30, 2017 | The Children of Linux

Linux - It's really not a hard operating system to learn. In fact, that statement is quite wrong. Linux is not an operating system.
Linux is a kernel which is used as the very core to build an operating system around. But these are the things that children of today
are not learning. At least, not in the public schools anyway.

When I was a teenager, I was very interested in computers. I looked forward to and really enjoyed my Information Technology classes.
But it wasn't just the computers that I was interested in. The more I got involved with them, the more I wanted to know about what goes
on to make them work. Or to be precise, the operating system. It's a long time ago now, but I remember when I was talking to my teacher
one day he briefly said something about "Unix".

Until that time, I had never heard of this mysterious Unix system. He mentioned it only this one time. At the time, I really didn't
know anything about Unix but was intrigued of what Unix could be. It was some years later before I got my first glimpse of anything to
do with Linux. Which is the widely-accepted modern alternative to Unix. My first encounter with Linux was SUSE 8, which came free on a
magazine at the time. I might mention, it later came to my attention the magazine was not actually meant to be giving the operating
system away on the front cover as they were. Not long after my acquisition of the disc, I learned that I was the one
responsible for having the copies of the disc recalled by the magazine publisher. How many were actually returned out of ethical duty is
anyone's guess. I suspect it was not many. But ever since my first experience with SUSE 8, I never let go of Linux and have always been
involved with it in one form or another.

Now as you all know and are well aware, Microsoft Windows is basically the only operating system taught in our public schools. I
understand that the Windows operating system is the industry standard and I can accept that. But I don't believe teaching children how
to use Windows solely, is the way forward to a positive IT future. And it is definitely not going to solve the problem of being able to
fill the coming flood of positions that are set to become available in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) sector.
If Linux even got a mention, it would be progress.

My high school years are well gone now, yet nothing has changed. Public schools are still teaching children Windows and
(unintentionally) presenting it as the only operating system you'll ever need to learn and the only operating system than can cater for
your daily computing requirements. This assumption is just so untrue and Linux has now evolved to become a great challenger to the
Windows operating system in the home and office.

There arises many issues and setbacks with the aforementioned lack of Linux teachings in high schools. One of the primary reasons,
being the IT teachers themselves having no concept of how to use Linux. There are many issues from many different angles. We are very
lucky in some ways that we live in a world of fast broadband access where anyone can download and install Linux for free. This is
accompanied by the huge wealth of technical information, guides and open-source development communities waiting to help, with a quick
search in your favorite search engine. When I was in high school, a 56k dial-up internet connection was a true privilege and there was
only one computer in the whole school that had internet access. I'm probably still on that waiting list to use that computer, as the list
was always a mile long and your turn never seemed to arrive.

All my 15 years of Linux experience that I have today has all been self-taught. I have put myself through free courses and done my fair
share of tinkering, configuring and certainly my fair share of breaking systems - sometimes accidental and sometimes intentional by motive
of learning. I continue to get yelled at by family members because I've broken the computer once again or changed something! I'm sure it will
continue for a very long time. Why? Because Linux offer endless learning capabilities. And despite being a Linux veteran, I am still learning
things on Linux on a daily basis and still intentionally break things to see how they work in detail. In fact, I continue to experiment with
third-party distributions and development packages which have potential to provide a very different user experience from the usual mainstream
Linux distributions like Ubuntu and Fedora.

That is where we begin the see the whole point. There's endless possibilities of learning when it comes to Linux. And perhaps that's the
problem when it comes to public schools and teaching Linux. It is such a large scale eco-system with so many different facets, where would
one begin to teach. I see that as an excuse for not teaching Linux and not a valid argument. Because even giving children a glimpse of Linux
in their high school studies will no doubt have a flow-on effect to further private studies and courses. Linux must be taught to future high
school students. Otherwise, we are going to experience a severe shortage of knowledgeable Linux administrators in the future. We are already
seeing the first signs of this problem and unless we start arming the young nerds of today with the knowledge they require to make up their
own mind, we are going to continue to have even more problems than we do at present.

If things don't change soon, I can only hope that today's students come out of schooling as open-minded as I did and choose to at least
give Linux a try and see for themselves the true raw power of free and open-source computing that is modern Unix - Linux.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Unixmen. The original author of the article is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and the article is
published under the Creative Commons license model. The article remains published on Unixmen, however the website breaks the terms of the Creative
Commons license and additionally, Unixmen has changed the name of the author and claims the article as their own. This is incorrect. Chris
McGimpsey-Jones is the original author of the article and it is now published to Freedom Publishers Union, with permission by the original author
and under Creative Commons license as permitted by the correct terms and conditions in accordance to the license.

On July 11, 2017, ABC News in Australia published scathing details of civilian casualties in Afghanistan which includes the lethal
shooting of children and unarmed men which have fallen at the hands of Australian Military involvement. This is followed up by details
of abuse of bodies of the deceased in Afghanistan, with documents dating incident from 2009 right through to 2014.

The Afghan Files publication by ABC News is very alarming and brings to light the question of potential misconduct of Australian
Special Forces soldiers in the Afghan warzones and the broader aspects of the culture that bonds these elite forces together, which mostly
operate in secrecy and under what appears to be very limited oversight from the Department of Defense.

The details were based on leaked documents which authenticate the horrific allegations of abuse, which the ABC has chosen not to publish
in full as many of them are marked with AUSTEO - Australian Eyes Only. Additionally, the reports are said to include details of a secret
internal military inquiry into the cases of the civilian casualties and abuse claims.

Understandably, there has been growing frustrations within Afghan communities. The frustrations are directed towards the Australian
Military for the many alleged cases of Australian soldiers killing innocent civilians, who are often determined post-incident to be unarmed,
uninvolved in the conflict or in some cases found to be children. As further details are revealed, unarmed civilians who have been killed
are often subjected to Australian soldiers setting up a 'scene' by placing knives or guns onto or surrounding the bodies of dead victims to
portray them as being armed at the time of death by the Australians.

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply concerned by the details found in the ABC publication and we urge the Australian Government and the
Department of Defense to look into the many outstanding issues surrounding these claims, which have been documented, leaked and published by
the ABC, yet previously shrouded in secrecy from the wider public by the Department of Defense.

Later details reveal disturbing details of Australian soldiers mutilating dead Afghans by severing the hands off the bodies, in a
so-called effort of identification-related purposes. As we understand it, Australian Military personnel are required to collect fingerprints
and eye scans as part of the identification process of the deceased. But only if possible to do so. We are so disturbed that soldiers are
resorting to what we view as desperate measures of body mutilation, in an effort to gain identification of the civilian casualties when they
are not actually required to do so if it is deemed not possible.

The published details are graphic, disturbing and raises many questions of whether Australia's Military require closer oversight in war
operations and also raises the potential question of whether a review of the current Rules of Engagement and other related military response
and operations guidelines should be further reviewed. For obvious national security reasons, Rules of Engagement and other related military
operations techniques and guidelines are usually kept secret and out of the public domain by the respective country's military.

Therefore, it remains nigh on impossible for Freedom Publishers Union to put exact parts of such operations and techniques under further
scrutiny due to the surrounding secrecy measures implemented. However, we feel we have every right to call out possibilities of operations
breaches if we have suspicion that there is in fact a breach or multiple breaches which have occurred.

The allegations and details publicized by ABC News bring many of these allegations to light, but it's also backed up by documented evidence
that these cases did occur and that the Australian Military was aware of the possibility of multiple breaches, yet it was kept secret and out
of the public domain.

The latest documents were dated as late as 2014, yet the atrocities carried out by Coalition forces, which includes Australia, continues
today. It is important to view the violence from both sides of the coin and understand that these acts of aggression and violence is not just
carried out by Coalition associated military forces, but also from Islamic State (IS) forces.

On July 10, 2017, Amnesty International released a 50-page Report titled "At Any Cost - The Civilian Catastrophe in West Mosul, Iraq". The
Report notes that in March and May 2017, Amnesty International visited Northern Iraq to examine and investigate possible violations of human
rights abuses and international humanitarian law.

The Report outlines the war atrocities and horrific and often unimaginable violence directly and indirectly involving civilians which is
carried out by both Coalition and IS Military Forces.

IS continues to disrespect and outright ignore the laws of war, international humanitarian law and the most basic elements of human rights.
The basic importance of human life also seems completely irrelevant in many cases. IS rounds up thousands of civilians at a time, moves them
into known war zones and uses them as human shields. Essentially, this creates a very big problem. When you can't distinguish the 'Enemy' from
'Civilian' - as is the case fighting IS militants and the various off-shoot groups which are present in so many of these places across Iraq
and Syria - you're going to get civilian casualties.

Furthermore, some of them are going to be deliberate killings. You can report, document, investigate and prosecute the soldiers
retroactively, but as long as your are making war, this will continue to happen.

What we do need and what Freedom Publishers Union immediately calls for is civilian casualties properly acknowledged and respected, through
proper documenting of the incidents surrounding their deaths. At present, we constantly see vast differences in the numbers of civilians killed
based on the figures from Amnesty International and independent monitoring groups such as Airwars and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in
camparison to 'official' acknowledged and documented civilian casualties published in the public domain by The Pentagon.

With such vast difference in numbers of civilian casualties released to the public, suspicion grows and questions need to be asked. Somewhere
between the high count of independent organizations and the relative low count of documented civilian casualties published by Government
representative departments, we need to get a more accurate figure.

We need greater transparency and we need to see better public disclosure, whilst allowing independent monitoring groups better access to
limited military data for the purpose of documentation of civilian casualties. Where classified information and sensitive data is involved, we
urge better collaboration between independent monitoring organizations and the military to ensure proper security protocols are followed and
respected.

This must also be followed up by ensuring that Rules of Engagement and military operations manuals and techniques are adapted to better
accommodate the process for documenting incidents of civilians casualties in a secure, respectful way without the secrecy and constant denial
of which we are currently witness to.

Too many civilians are being killed in Iraq and Syria and whilst being denied recognition of their untimely and unexpected deaths, they are
equally being denied the respect they deserve. These civilians of foreign countries being caught up in military conlfict zones are still human
and are therefore entitled to have their human rights respected, inclusive of their dignity.

There is a deep problem. It is war. Civilian casualties happen. The only way to not have civilian casualties is to not go to war in the first
place.

During the month of June, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, Elon Musk, released a 16-page essay on multi-planetary civilization,
the science community was a little surprised. Some academics were critical of the essay's contents and expressed concern it has no
scientific credibility and that it was nothing more than a fantasy.

Before you go head and read the essay, one must open up their mind to the concept of multi-planetary civilization. In reference
to Musk's essay and from a scientific stand point, there are many innaccuracies and clear expressions of ignorance of some of the
major scientific and engineering challenges that such a cosmic venture would pose. Additionally, from an engineering perspective
there remains many problems which would potential make or break any plans for humans to settle on Mars. However, we need to take a
step back for a second and look at the structure of the essay. Musk presents the essay by going through each challenge in the
appropriate steps which would be required to be completed for any such plan to become reality and to be successful.

The essay starts by outlining humanity's necessity to consider migrating to another planet. In Musk's proposal, he has chosen Mars
as his focus. This is not just a random planet pick out of our solar system, he actually does make his case for choosing Mars
specifically. The essay continues on and outlines in brief, the requirement for a little more exploration of Mars prior to initiating
plans for civilization inhabiting the planet and to start building self-sustaining cities. He is not completely ignorant to the challenges
posed by such an ambitious plan. Musk outlines the common challenges that require immediate attention. Technology challenges are very
present which would require heavy investment, much research, technical and engineering development and vast improvements to existing
technology. We also can't ignore the fact that in some cases we are considering technology that does not yet exist and scientific
challenges that have not yet been explored, analyzed and produced any kind of unaninous academic and scientific conclusion. But it's
not just the technical challenges that are of immediate concern, there are additional multitudes of engineering challenges too.

The essay continues to detail space ship types and sizes required to transport equipment and actual humans, along with the rocket and
propulsion technology required to launch, operate, direct and land these massive ships of which the world has not yet witnessed anything
that comes close to resembling the size that Musk proposes is required. Again, we need to remind people that it's a very ambitious plan
which will require much more detailed analysis and research.

Finally, the essay concludes with plans for refuelling these ships mid-flight and even goes as far as detailing eventual requirement
for fueling 'stations' located in various parts throughout solar system and beyond.

The main problem with the essay is it remains very brief. The entirety of the essay is just 16-pages and it includes information,
technical details and diagrams to help illustrate the proposal. The plan is all clear and for such a short essay with only brief
information, Musk does a great job of getting his point accross. He deserves credit for that. But where the essay remains very brief, is
also the subject of its negative critique. For such a vast plan to be drafted and proposed in just 16-pages could be viewed as ridiculous.
And if the proposal is to be ever taken serious, we feel that it would require much more detail, technical specifications, scientific and
engineering analysis than this. A serious proposal would most likely run into thousands of pages of text and diagrams.

Elon Musk should not be ignored nor should this essay be treated as ridiculous science fiction. Some might make the assumption that Musk
has fallen victim to his own work to the same degree that Ron L. Hubbard succumbed to his own science fiction stories by actually believing
what he was writing, to be the truth. The concept of multi-planetary civilization is nothing new and Musk is not the first person to come
up with such a concept. When reading the essay you can't help but feel the enthusiasm in Musk's words. His passion for the concept and further
development to make the concept a reality is very obvious. On this front, he should be credited for spawning the idea. After all, he founded
Tesla and SpaceX to much critique in the early development stages of the companies. Despite the criticism, both Tesla and SpaceX have
succeeded and continue to make milestones in technologies and development in their respective fields of business.

We should not discredit Musk and in fact, we should be embracing the passion and thought put into the essay. It's a starting point and all
great ambitions start with a basic plan. Even if that plan is to come across as initially crazy. There are obvious challenges present which
humans have not yet been forced to deal with. But that leads us to the point where we start believing that Elon Musk's essay is not so
ridiculous as you might think. He has outlined problems. He has only provided basic and vague ideas to overcome these challenges. He is just
one man. But he is a visionary. Imagine what the brilliant minds of humans could achieve if more thought, research and development was put
into multi-planetary exploration with an eventual plan for civilization and establshment of self-sustaining cities on Mars and beyond.

As humans continue to destroy Earth at rapid rate and continue to absolutely outright ignore the problems we are already facing and will
face in the future by climate change, and take into consideration the undisputed resource problems that our planet will face, we need a plan
B. Elon Musk has proposed an alternative. Is it really such a bad thing to put forth a plan which could possibly see the continued existence
of our species? We say it again - He is just one man. But he is a visionary.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

June 25, 2017
| 'Five Eyes' Calls for Better Security co-operation Could Still Lead to Attacks on Encryption and Forced Backdoors

Momentum is gaining traction for 'Five Eyes' nation's respective leaders to (re)commence their attacks on encryption. The new front is
being led by Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. It comes not so long after the newly re-elected Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom, Theresa May, released a Party Manifesto which detailed in disturbing detail a future vision for digital rights and the potential
for the UK to lead the way through introduction of legislation which would see regulation of the internet.

Freedom Publishers Union advocates for freedom of information which includes freedom of accessibility and spreading of digital information
on the internet, without government intervention, tampering or mass-surveillance. It is the whole purpose of the open design and development
of the internet and the infrastructure that binds it together. We will always aim to protect the organic nature of its design.

It has become increasingly clear since the revelations of government sponsored and initiated mass-surveillance programs that governments
were unhappy about their secret programs becoming public knowledge. Political discourse followed and legislation was gradually introduced by
a variety of parties and nations which aimed to regulate and reign in the what were previously secret mass-surveillance programs which
operated under the radar and on sweeping scale. The amount of data these sweeping programs were gathering and the rate of collection was vast
and in some cases required completely new datacenters to be built, purely for secure storage of the data.

For a short while, Freedom Publishers Union was positive with the actions that we were witness to. There were signs that government
bureaucrats were taking notice of citizen discontent with their every move being tracked and logged. But the path to surveillance cleansing
has once again gone off-track and we could comfortably conclude that we are going backwards and on a path to mass-surveillance which if goes
unchecked and unchallenged, will undoubtedly grow to a scale larger than anything we've yet learned.

Privacy is important. It is a civil liberty of citizens to enjoy and uphold their right to privacy. This right to privacy is enhanced through
the use of encryption. Before the revelations of secret mass-surveillance programs was revealed, citizens were ignorant to encryption not
through intention, but through lack of knowledge and understanding of its purpose to protect their data from the unwelcome eyes of sweeping
surveillance programs like PRISM, XKeyscore, Tempora, MUSCULAR and STATEROOM.

On the eve of the secret 'Five Eyes' security meeting in Canada, Australia is calling for better co-operation from technology companies with
intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Malcolm Turnbull stops short of stating what specific measures he and his Australian Attorney
General, George Brandis, would be proposing. But he did state that calls for increased co-operation does not mean that pursuit of forced
backdoor inclusion is on the table.

Freedom Publishers Union warns citizens, we must not be complacent in trusting our democratic country's governments to always do the right
thing and protect our data. It has now become all too clear that governments want our data, therefore we must protect it. We must not conclude
that it is a war between governments and the citizens. Because it is not. And this is a scenario which we prefer to avoid, frankly. We believe
that governments do have genuine intent when legislation is passed that legalize surveillance programs under the banner of protecting citizens
through fighting terrorism. Intent is there. But the temptation for sweeping surveillance on mass scale is there, it does happen and will
continue to happen is pressure on governments and intelligence agencies is not maintained.

Freedom Publishers Union reminds our supporters and readers that protection of your data is your priority. Encryption is available for free
and much of it open-source. You can openly and freely use it to protect your data right now. There are tools for beginners and tools for
advanced users. But use of encryption to protect your data should not be your only mission. You should also be advocating for the use of
encryption and other software that protects privacy and data. Help others download and install privacy software when you become comfortable
with how it works. Let it be your mission to advocate and spread the message that our data should remain exactly that - "Our data".

It is no longer the sole responsibility of advocacy groups and crypto-anarchists to do the hard work and advocate for right to freedom and
privacy. We have moved beyond that and it is now up to everyone to unite. It's no longer a movement or a political activist campaign. It is
your right. If you do not own your rights to privacy and continue to fight for your civil liberties, they might very well be taken away from
you by overreaching governments and intelligence agencies. It was all happening right under our noses prior to the courageous leaks of Edward
Snowden as a former NSA security analyst working on these secret programs. It could easily happen again if we don't stand up, unite on the
privacy frontline and speak out in support of encryption, privacy and civil liberties that enable freedom to thrive to its truest form.

Wikileaks continues to disperse information which reveals just how deep the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spying techniques really
go. The latest documents leak from the Vault 7 cache paints a true picture of what we already suspected of the CIA intelligence gathering
methods - there really is no boundaries for their targets. Essentially, everything is a target.

The latest documents contain information which detail with frightening certainty that network hardware, routers, switches and firewalls
are a focus of the CIA's vast spy program. The network routers that are the forefront of the Wikileaks publication don't just single out
one or two brands or models of network hardware, but entire series of routers which the CIA has methods of tampering with, typically by
installing unauthorized modified firmware.

The hardware range targeted are some well known brands of D-Link, Belkin, 3Com, Linksys and Cisco. Oddly, the equally popular consumer
brands such as the Billion, Netgear and TP-LINK network hardware are not mentioned. We could make the assumption that the brands targeted
have less security and are easier for the CIA to manipulate and supposed non-targeted brands have better security. It's important to note
this is assumption only and we have absolutely no substance of data to back up this assumption. We can not confirm whether there is more
routers which have fallen into the cross-hairs of the CIA, but there is some notable absences.

There has been some over-hyped reporting on the latest release. But it's important to keep the entire Wikileaks publication in context.
The CIA has the ability, as we've now learned through these publications, to install modified firmware onto these network hardware devices.
There is a mix of consumer level hardware and also business centric hardware. We do not urge panic. We urge caution. But we should never
remain complacent and should always aim to stay one step ahead of security contractors that work for government intelligence gathering
agencies and ahead of the intelligence gathering agencies themselves. ie. CIA, FBI, NSA, GCHQ, ASIO and others.

Most good network administrators know their hardware very well and should therefore know when/if firmware has been changed or updated
without their consent. Freedom Publishers Union considers our own network security to be quite strong. Our server resides on a network
behind multiple routers, multiple switches and firewalls. We are confident of our network security and always maintain priority of our
network activity at software and hardware level. There are certain indicators which would draw immediate attention to network hardware that
has been tampered with. However, in large corporate environments with large and complex networking infrastructure, it would be fair to say
that one could not expect the administrators to be able to monitor their state of health and security of every single hardware device
connected to these networks. It would be unfair to expect this and outright unrealistic to imply that such undertaking could even be possible
without appropriate resources and personnel to carry out such a massive task.

This most likely explains the absence of most consumer level networking hardware. But we can not be sure whether there is more
information that accompanies what has been published by Wikileaks, or whether Wikileaks has purposely held some information back. Or it could
be a case that such information never leaked through to Wikileaks as part of the Vault 7 cache because it simply does not exist.

This much is speculation. What is not speculation is the very fact that the CIA does carry out spying, hacking and all other forms of
intelligence gathering without boundaries or morals. We must remember to always go back to the source documents themselves and analyze the
finer detail where required.

May 9, 2017
| Facebook Having Identity Crisis. Must Look to Google for Inspiration

Facebook is facing a huge identity crisis. To the initial public eye of familiarity, Facebook is still the
daily social media habit. They are still a social media company, to be fair. But things are changing at
Facebook, yet we're not convinced that the company is aware of the change that is underway and
whether they are working to best position themselves to accommodate its evolving identity.

To elaborate further and to find a possible solution to Facebook's identity crisis, we need to take a
look at one of its largest Silicon Valley rivals - Google.

When Google made the announcement that it was being integrated into a portfolio and under the
banner of a brand new company called Alphabet Inc., the corporate world was at first a little confused.
Google loyalists were equally confused and bewildered what was happening to this giant of Silicon
Valley. The initial confusion was justified. When you take a closer look at what Google done and the
reasons for their corporate shake-up and integration into a new parent company, we quickly conclude
that it was probably one of the smartest corporate choices Silicon Valley has witnessed.

Google created Alphabet Inc. to become the parent company of Google and its other company
holdings, subsidiaries and corporate projects. The public will usually associate Google with being the
friendly search engine that pops up on most internet web browsers when you first open it. Google is
friendly, happy and familiar to everyone. There was a more complex side to Google though, which
may not have been so obvious to anyone unfamiliar with the company's operations. Google was
much bigger than just a search engine. Over the years of its existence, Google had acquired many
other businesses and also diversified into other areas of science, research and development,
computing, operating systems, software development and smart phone development and operations.
If you were to summarize the operations of Google in just a couple of words, you could only state that
it was "huge and complex". It had become so diversified and complex that it entered an internal
identity crisis itself. But Google was quick to recognize this. Quicker than what the public and
corporate analysts had determined. And it was upon this recognition that Alphabet Inc. was founded
and the divisions created.

Facebook must look to Google for inspiration. Facebook has moved beyond the realm of being just a
social media company. It is (and has been for some time) involved in scientific research, software
development, gaming and hardware. The next big thing for Facebook looks to be media and news. It
has somewhat experimented in this sector, with Trending Topics. However, actual Trending Editors
were replaced by internal algorithms. This was not a major setback for Facebook media ambitions, if
there are any actual ambitions. But it's safe to say the algorithms failed and were certainly not a
suitable replacement for actual content editors. Trending Topics seems to have been brushed to the
side in the Facebook interface and it remains unclear how much focus this area will get.

So where does this take us? It leads us to question whether Facebook has legitimate media ambitions
or whether it is being pulled unwillingly into the sector by internet market forces. Change at the top
could be key to regaining control. Facebook potentially have two options to initiate
change and regain control of the company's direction. One option is for them to create a Board of
Directors. Some believe that as long as Mark Zuckerberg has sole (majority) control, there will be
confusion. To be fair, Facebook hasn't really reached the diversity of Google, yet. Google's Board
together with Eric Schmidt, Sergei Brin and Larry Page figured out that Google has become a holding
company without intending to do so. They understood the necessary changes and formally made the
shift. The changes also allowed them to formalize their company philosophy and define what criteria
each sector of the business needs to meet for success and growth under Alphabet Inc.

Facebook hasn't diversifies as far from its roots and it's still mostly about information sharing with
advertising thrown into the mix, which is not only keeping the business successful, but generating
huge amounts of cash reserves to be invested in other projects. The trend is set to continue and
Facebook is undoubtedly set to diversify even more. Unlike Google, it is apparent that Facebook has
not yet learned how to plan management and monetization as part of a new project. They are still
primarily focused in the one industry - information collection and delivery. In some ways, Facebook is
closer to resembling News Corporation than what it does Google.

There's lots going on at Facebook. To be honest, it is confusing. The company needs to define what it
is. Without even knowing it, it's trying to be too many things. Splitting it would go some way to
allowing it to focus on being a company with different divisions which could focus on each sector
more appropriately. Emulating exactly what Google has done. It's almost becoming a media company
in its own right, but not quite there yet. When Facebook reaches this point, it will be a very different
kind of media company. Like nothing we've seen yet. That is where the challenge lies - defining what
it is and what they do.

We draw back to the point of Zuckerberg holding control of the company operations, which is also our
second option, of letting Zuckerberg retain that control. Although a Board of Directors at Facebook
would not be the worst decision, one could also be forgiven for believing that Zuckerberg has an
'ultimate' vision and is still the one person that should have sole control to achieve that vision.

Looking outside the spectrum slightly, there is a problem with America versus the rest of the world. In
the United States of America, corporations are treated as human entities. Whereas in Europe, the
majority shareholder or Managing Director is personally responsible for the actions of the company.
US corporations act as proxy for owners and management, which therefore allows the company to
pay any penalties and results and no responsibility assigned to leadership level. It's the moral
equivalent in business of saying all the Nazi atrocities were carried out by Germany and that Germany
needs to go to jail, not Hitler or the Nazi leadership.

Google made the transition from the duopoly of Brin and Page to a diversified Board that allows
responsibility to rest in the corporations, while providing the measurement framework for these to
meet. Facebook must look for inspiration. They're very lucky. They don't have to look hard as the
inspiration is right on their door step. Alphabet Inc. is a proven success. Facebook must recognize
what it is, how to present itself to the public and win back ultimate trust of investors and public users.

In a recent spiel by the CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies he spoke out about what he believes are unfair injustices of sections of the publishing
industry, followed up by making several references that the Trump Administration will be seeking to
reform the media industry.

Media reform is not the problem, nor is it the simple fact that Pompeo spoke out about his
narrow-minded view of a supposed injustice. Under the very free speech that Freedom Publishers
Union advocates and supports he is perfectly entitled to do so. However, there are many aspects of
his comments which must be scrutinized in closer detail. Specifically, Freedom Publishers Union is
concerned of the direction of which Pompeo's complaints were directed. He complains of the
publishing actions of Wikileaks and its Editor, Julian Assange. But he didn't stop there. He continued
on his rant to declare the apparent injustice and illegal actions of leakers which provide media
organizations with their caches of information, data and/or documentation. He describes the modern
independent media trend as a "celebration of entities like Wikileaks" and what he describes as being
"both perplexing and deeply troubling".

We disagree.

Freedom Publishers Union must make it very clear that we do not dispute that much of the material
that media organizations, including leak websites such as Wikileaks, obtains probably is illegal.
However, there is a fine line, which remains quite gray and blurred, which constitutes as news that is
in the public interest and should be released regardless of how it was obtained or whether the source
obtains the information by legal or illegal means. When it comes to media, sure, we must all act
accordingly and within the boundaries of the law. Yet we must also uphold our publishing
responsibilities by sharing the information that we obtain and provided to us, by our sources. We
point out that this extends rights across the media industry as a whole and is not limited to Freedom
Publishers Union, Wikileaks or any other media organization. Not at all. It's a constantly growing
industry, thanks to digital publication tools readily available for anyone to utilize.

Why Pompeo's comments remain so tight in scope and focuses on Wikileaks, remains a mystery.
Additionally, it concerns us that his comments also put Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning in his
cross-hairs. Snowden resides in Russia on temporary visa and Manning is still detained in a military
prison, awaiting her early release in coming months. But this didn't stop Pompeo by using them as an
example by claiming their actions are carried out to "seek to use that information to make a name for
themselves". A notion that we absolutely dispute. And he claims, "As long as they make a splash, they
care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage they cause to national security".

These are reckless comments coming from the Director of the CIA, as to date no evidence has been
presented to make the case that any such publications by Wikileaks has ever put any persons or
individuals at risk of harm. Disclosures released by Snowden have been dribble fed to small selections of
media organizations. Although he has never stated why his disclosures are dribble fed at such slow
pace, Freedom Publishers Union can only conclude that this is done to minimize political fallout and
to minimize risk to persons associated with such disclosures and the usually scathing details that he
provides through the source information.

Despite Pompeo claiming that Manning was directed by Assange to collect the information that she
was able to obtain, we must say that this is absolutely false and is outright stupid to make this claim.
And it's obvious that Pompeo is making this a definitive claim, rather than an accusation. It is well
known that Chelsea Manning acted alone, disturbed by the activities she witnessed by the US Military
in Iraq and Afghanistan which prompted her to collect and forward the data onto Wikileaks. Freedom
Publishers Union understands that Assange had limited contact with Manning during the transmission
of data to Wikileaks, but it certainly can not be claimed that Manning was under the direction or
orders of Assange.

Are the Director's comments truly aimed directly towards Julian Assange and Wikileaks, rather than
the media industry as a whole? We believe yes. Careful analysis of the Pompeo's speech makes this
an obvious point.

Are the frustrations of the political stalemate which sees Assange still detained to the Ecuadorian
Embassy in London beginning to reach boiling point and the Trump Administration is seeking a quick
resolution? This is very possible.

Is this boiling point finally going to see the US legal system act on its outstanding Grand Jury against
Wikileaks and Assange? While the US Government continue to shroud the Grand Jury in secrecy and
deny its existence, we believe this is still unlikely in the short-term, unless more evidence of actual
illegal activity becomes available.

In a Statement released by Julian Assange, he believes that the CIA Director should have focused on
more important and current issues of international politics surrounding China and North Korea.
Interestingly, Assange failed to mention the outstanding US tensions present with Russia. This will be
sure to add fuel to the fire of continued accusations that Assange continues to speak out and work for
the interests of Russia.

Freedom Publishers Union does not support this view and believes it is completely unjustified. But
Assange could have put a stop to these unjustified accusations, by at least mentioning Russia as a
topic of concern in the same context he does of China and North Korea - which we believe are
justified by mention.

Assange concluded his response Statement very well, "Pompeo's speech attempting to stifle speech
only serves to underscore why Wikileaks' publications are necessary. Wikileaks will continue to
publish true, newsworthy information that contributes to the public debate".

Freedom Publishers Union echoes this statement and strives to always follow the same publication
path and standards, enhancing the free press to a wider audience through publication of well
researched and fact-based information. We hope that all independent media organizations follow the
same path and strive to do the same.

Freedom Publishers Union actually goes one step further and releases our Editorials and original
material under a combination of Creative Commons and
Konomark, which guarantees a careful and responsible
balance of the associated freedoms of sharing of this information and helps to ensure it can not be
removed or censored.

Pompeo continued to justify the points he makes in his tirade by quoting hand-picked comments from
The Intercept, which criticized Wikileaks for "stretching the facts" and documents published were
"not worth the concern Wikileaks generated by its public comments". Freedom Publishers Union does
not work directly with Wikileaks or The Intercept. However, their work is part of our information
gathering and Editorial processing, often providing vital research material that can not be found in
mainstream media coverage of certain stories. But we have also previously made direct judgment onboth
Wikileaks and The Intercept. We have also directly criticized Julian Assange and Glenn
Greenwald (and Edward Snowden), on various issues in the past. The point is; even if a working
relationship is in place, official or unofficial, we still retain our right to openly criticize and put
pressure on each other where we feel there is justification for criticism. It's the democracy embedded
in open and free media and it's this criticism which keeps the free press healthy and goes to ensure
accuracy of information and helps to present non-bias, factual presentation of information.

Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept sums it up well, "Trump's CIA Director stood up in public and
explicitly threatened to target free speech rights and press freedoms, and it was almost impossible to
find even a single US mainstream journalist expressing objections or alarm, because the targets
Pompeo chose in this instance are ones they dislike - much the way that many are willing to overlook
or even sanction free speech repression if the targeted ideas or speakers are sufficiently unpopular".

Greenwald goes on to quote Pompeo further, "A little less Constitutional law and a lot more of a
philosophical understanding. Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a US citizen.
What I was speaking to is an understanding that these are not reporters doing good work to try to
keep the American Government on us. These are actively recruiting agents to steal American secrets
with the sole intent of destroying the American way of life. That is fundamentally different than a First
Amendment activity as I understand them. This is what I was getting to. We have had administrations
before that have been too squeamish about going after these people, after some concept of this right
to publish. Nobody has the right to actively engage in the theft of secrets from American without the
intent to do harm to it".

Greenwald responds by stating, "Given how menacing and extreme this statement is, it is remarkable
- and genuinely frightening - that it received so little notice, let alone condemnation, from the US
press corps".

Freedom Publishers Union can not comment in legal terms, but Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept
claims that "the notion that Wikileaks has no free press rights [under the US Constitution] because
Assange is a foreigner is both wrong and dangerous". We can however express our own frustration
among independent media circles, when mainstream media fails to pick up on these issues or outright
ignores to cover them.

We believe there are greater implications to press freedom if the US were to criminalize publication
of classified information. it is common practice among the free press, including mainstream US media,
to publish classified documents and information which is deemed in the public interest by that media
organization.

Furthermore, legally charging and prosecuting Wikileaks and its staff members for publishing secret
documents and information are a huge threat to press freedom and also bring into question the
purpose of the purported protections and legal standing of the US Constitution. This whole issue of
drawing the line with First Amendment protections is a huge can of worms.

Essentially, the official secrets protections are nothing more than a Government Non-Disclosure
Agreement which means that before you are allowed to see the secrets, you agree to be prosecuted if
you reveal the secrets, without permission. Let's be honest - you're never going to get permission to
release information which details secret government operations or mass-surveillance programs.

Freedom Publishers Union points out that we must recognize illegal activity when we see it. We
wouldn't even blink if Microsoft launched criminal proceedings against someone who stole and
published the source code to its Windows operating system. Or if someone published the complete
text of J.K. Rowling's next Harry Potter novel. The person committing the theft is certainly guilty of a
criminal act. But that's where the free press has an ethical responsibility and needs to make a decision
- to publish if they deem it to be in interest of the public or to refrain because it was sourced illegally.

Upon receiving the Iraq and Afghanistan material, Assange made an ethical decision as Editor of
Wikileaks, to publish the material. Albeit, initially in redacted form. Yet nobody must ignore that Chelsea
Manning committed a criminal action in stealing the information. Justified or not, there is a fundamental
breach of law involved.

Wikileaks obtained the documents. Manning was caught and imprisoned. That much is fact.

Where this gets complicated is what happens at the next level, after the initial theft, the act of
publication is essentially removed from the theft. If Glenn Greenwald publishes the verbatim text of
aforementioned hypothetical Harry Potter novel, knowing that it is the unpublished book, he would
also be committing a crime as an accessory to theft. In effect, the second publisher becomes a fence
of stolen property. Even if criminal actions are discovered on the part of J.K. Rowling, the theft and
fence are still guilty of a crime. Although charges would likely be dropped if the revelation of the
other crime was sufficiently heinous.

Under the same theory, the theft and publication of secret documents are also crimes. Just against a
different victim. The prosecution of the theft and publication of secrets is dealt with the same as a
Harry Potter theft. If there is the revelation of criminal activity in the stolen material, it is likely that
the theft charges would be dropped - at least against the journalist(s) that publish it.

A slightly different perspective, interestingly, the US Government could probably make a case for
copyright infringement stick. Even if there is question about whether the publication of the stolen
documents are justified by revealing a more criminal act. And that is if they copyrighted the secret
documents in the first place. Admittedly, this is taking a slightly different view on the issue. But it is
interesting nevertheless.

Freedom Publishers Union outright condemns the CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, in taking a blatant
stance to violate First Amendment guarantees. But it must be acknowledged that somewhere in the
mess of leaking and/or stealing classified secret information and documents, there is a point where a
real criminal action occurred.

Where that happened and who bears responsibility for it is what legal scholars will be debating for
years to come.

March 21, 2017 | Are We Forgetting About the CIA's Lack of Morals and Ethics?

The Julian Assange and Wikileaks bashing has proceeded once again. When the notorious publishing
organization released the first dump as part of the Vault 7 cache, the same old arguments were
launched and carried on for the days that proceeded. These arguments are quite unjustified. Assange,
through Wikileaks, is constantly finding himself under scrutiny for the controversial releases and files
dumps of the content that the publishing organization gets it hands on, through anonymous user
submission.

The work and data dumps of Wikileaks shouldn't be about Assange. Nor should it be about Wikileaks.
Yet for some abhorrent reason, we constantly find mainstream media outlets questioning the
journalistic responsibility and integrity of Assange and Wikileaks. Again, Freedom Publishers Union
reminds these select media groups that it is not about Assange and it is not about Wikileaks. The real
focus of the story should be exactly what the data dump presents - The CIA operating an internal
hacking network and of which its activities should be questioned for morals and ethics against the spy
agency's mandate.

The CIA should be put to scrutiny. That is what should be the focus of the story. It is precisely what
Assange makes clear in his Press Statement which accompanied this release.

The CIA has a mandate. They have regulations and the agency must (and should) operate within the
boundaries of its mandate. If it operates outside of its limitations, then it should be put in the public
spotlight and put on the stage of public debate.

Whether this is by means of internal whistleblowing and leaked data - it's irrelevant. The public
debate on the actions of the CIA must ensue.

It will not come as a major shock to anyone to find out the CIA regularly dabbles outside of its
mandate. Due to the serious nature of the agency's activities and operations that it is tasked for,
there should remain a certain amount of flexibility within its operating activities.

It's also well known that the NSA operates mass-surveillance and spying programs. We have all put
eye ball to the documents that prove these programs exist through the very public discourse and
extensive media coverage that followed the initial release of the Snowden leaked documents from
the NSA and its intelligence sub-contractors.

Now we've learned through the most recent release from Wikileaks, the CIA is also carrying out
spying programs of its own, somewhat in competition with its fellow spy agency, the NSA.

One thing is so obvious that you might as well head to the CIA Headquarters and paint it on the front
door - The agency has no morals and no ethics. It is that obvious.

One could make the argument that the CIA et al are spy agencies tasked with spying. It's what they do.
One could back up that argument with another, by stating that based on those activities the agencies
do not have to adhere to morals and ethics.

Freedom Publishers Union disagree. The CIA, NSA and all government operated intelligence
departments should operate with a certain level of understanding of their moral and ethical
obligations.

Morals and ethics exist and should be followed. The obvious absence of them is what should be
reported. These agencies are essentially behaving at free will, creating the tools to initiate as much
discomfort and annoyance they feel satisfies their incredible need for knowledge and power over
citizens and their civil rights.

Please don't bring out the old 'we only perform these operations on targets' card. That card has failed
every other time and it will continue to fail. Much the same as the argument that everything is done
to ensure 'national security' from 'terrorists' and the other 'bad guys'.

Come on, please.

If these agencies think we sit idle and actually take notice of their pathetic justifications for their
over-use and overreach of their surveillance and spy powers, then these agencies will continue to be
forced into the public spotlight by willing whistleblowers and brave publishers such as Julian Assange
and Wikileaks.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

March 21, 2017 | Spying May Be Unethical But it Must be Done, Within Legal Boundaries of the Law

The morality of spying. This is not a new issue. For many millennium, spying has been classified as an
immoral operation. Indeed, spies have been subjected to torture and ignominious death since the
Chinese and Egyptians ruled civilization because of their moral turpitude. In parallel with this,
however, the amount of spying and its scope certainly has never decreased. So obviously there is a
double standard in the way governments and rulers see the utility of espionage vs morality. Even the
world's citizens see spying with two views. We hail the men and women that worked in the
underground against Germany in World War II; stealing information and sending it on to the Allies for
action. Indeed; the defeat of the German U-boats was only possible after espionage was able to break
the German (and Japanese) military codes.

Domestically, Americans have for decades known that the FBI uses espionage to counter criminals,
from wire-tapping to intercepting messages and ciphers. This has proven to have prevented many
acts of crime and violence.

Our agencies - and indeed, the rest of the "Five Eyes" - do adhere to standards of morality and legality.
And secrecy. For nearly every person in America or elsewhere in the "Eyes", this has been one of the
foundations of our freedom. We know that our privacy is being protected, because we aren't all being
arrested for committing the 'crimes that everyone in America commits'. It is not against the law to
bash our government; it isn't illegal to trash talk our leaders; hell, it's not even illegal to discuss
revolution in public! If we were being spied upon, America would be a lot more like Turkey or Egypt. This must be remembered.

We have a tolerance for the morality of spying, so long as we feel that it isn't being used on us. I'm
not going to discuss the way Americans and the rest of the world were duped into questioning
individual privacy. But recognize that we, as citizens, look upon our privacy through a many-faceted
glass, causing us to reflect on freedom and privacy in many different and often diametrically opposed
ways.

On Wikileaks and their information; the publishing organization performs a service that is critical to
the functioning of freedom in the abstract and practical sense. It provides information about activities
that are being done that may or may not meet with our intellectual and moral approval. Some of
these actions may truly be illegal as well as immoral. It is important for these actions to be revealed
and corrected in order to ensure that our freedom is based on the 'Rule of Law', both in its scope and
in the limits that we, as a civil society, must have.

However, we also need to look at Wikileaks with the same caution that we use on any other media
source. While the information Wikileaks releases is usually verified by the same agencies that stand
accused of the actions in question, the information does come from anonymous sources with little
provable veracity - at least until someone at NSA 'fesses up that 'it's true'. Even then, 'first
impressions' authenticity can still be put to question.

One of the problems with getting this information is that it is often impossible to verify it before it is
released. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the perpetrators usually admit to the act and
corrections are made. However, over time it becomes more and more difficult for Wikileaks to not be
duped by cleverly created 'propaganda dumps'.

The release of the "DNC emails" during the election is an example of something that - in and of itself -
was not a really surprising or shocking revelation for anyone that has worked in politics. However, the
cachet of being release by Wikileaks, a source we trust for revealing hidden facts and secret stuff -
and the fact that we were in a contentious elections - caused the story to carry far more weight than
the facts it contained inside the documents. It also can not be ignored that the DNC emails publication
revealed a bias in the Editorial staff of Wikileaks, that had been underplayed in previous releases - A
bias that has somewhat undermined the credibility of the organization.

All of our intelligence agencies and all of our other Government departments need to be held up and
inspected on a regular basis through genuine auditing and oversight. It is far too easy to commit
criminal acts where you're behind the line of the law instead of in front. But at the same time,
everyone needs to put this information into a true perspective, rather than simply take the spin a
certain news organization put on it.

As an example, the 'revelation' of the Samsung TV recording [spying] capability - It is well known and
documented elsewhere that nearly every connected device in a home [Internet of Things (IoT)] can be
hacked to perform some form of spying or disruption. Learning that a spy agency has that in its closet
is completely obvious, really. And we must understand this isn't the first time this has happened. Back
in 2014 the Chinese company, Huawei, was banned from selling their excellent switches in some
countries because the CIA discovered that they had malware baked in by the Chinese government. No
outcries from that!

It isn't government surveillance that I am concerned about. It's the basis of the government itself.
Both the US and Australia are governed under a "Constitution" that establishes the "Rule of Law" and
how it is applied and enforced. The Rule of Law ensures that when freedom or rights are violated, it is
redressed with the full force of the government of the nation. Thus, if someone were to be harmed by
unwarranted surveillance and invasion of a guaranteed right, the agency committing the harm would
be fully liable under law. Even if there is no known harm, once the violation is discovered, legal
proceedings to prevent future violation are undertaken.

You spy without legal permission, you and your agency are punished. It has worked in the case of the
Snowden revelations; it will continue to work as long as the American Constitution is held supreme, as
it must.

The bottom line is how intrusive the surveillance is.

Scanning phone records meta-data doesn't violate privacy in nearly all cases. If I call someone in
country X, yes, that record will be scanned. But there isn't anything actionable about it, so nothing
happens. It is, literally, the case of 'a tree falling in the woods'. On the other hand, if that record
triggers an investigation into me and my actions, then, unless I've violated a law or I'm under
suspicion of violating a law, any result of that investigation constitutes a violation of my rights under
Constitutional law. And I'd have a prima facia case in court.

Agencies like the CIA, NSA, GCHQ, ASIO and other members of the "Five Eyes" DO NEED TO BE
AUDITED TO PREVENT ILLEGAL ACTIONS. But the line must be drawn at when the agency actually
breaks a law, not merely that their action can potentially break a law. Scanning meta-data is legal, so
long as the results remain anonymous. Listening to my conversation is illegal without a specific
warrant - and a FISA court warrant is still completely legal. And adding software to a device to
perform surveillance may be legal so long as it doesn't immediately violate my Constitutional rights.
Especially if that software is actually in place for another purpose and isn't specifically introduced for
surveillance - like the inadvertent ability to enable a web-cam already present in existing software. Solong
as a warrant is obtained to use it for surveillance purposes, it's legal. On the other hand, if the
'bug' is intentionally introduced, then a FISA warrant better be in hand because that action borders
on illegal - and would be if it is used.

At Freedom Publishers Union we must stress that we are not advocating for enabling a "Big Brother"
state; far from it. But we all need to understand the need for some of these techniques and
technologies: foreknowledge is forewarned. There are times where the "Ends Justify the Means. But
in all cases, the agencies must work within the limits of their charter and the Constitution and be held
to it. Even if sometimes the permission is retroactive.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

January 28, 2017 | Trump's Influence on Balance of Privacy and Law

There is growing fear spreading throughout digital societies that our privacy is being eroded. Fears
continue to be sparked, largely due to the erratic and somewhat unpredictable behavior of newly
elected US President Donald Trump and his Administration. A common term that we are beginning to
hear get thrown around the office is, "There is no such thing as privacy". This term has a disturbing
amount of truth to it.

If we specifically refer to modern computerized technology, our privacy as it existed pre-modern
computers, is being leaked to the world at rapid rate and on a daily basis. If we disregard privacy, it is
possible to have temporary secrecy. But even that can and will disappear as soon as there is value in
doing so. It doesn't matter who is in charge of making the rules, because we already know that the
rule of law doesn't apply when it comes to privacy and secrecy. If we make privacy a legal right, then
covert surveillance will be conducted without legal oversight anyway. If we acknowledge that there
actually is no privacy, then we will prepare ourselves for the consequences of our actions being
revealed when we take them.

We can't deny the fact that President Trump will be no more abusive with privacy than any other
President and Congress would be. Even with strong laws protecting privacy, if there is a compelling
reason to violate the law and obtain the data, it will be done regardless of legal status or classification.
By making it easy to obtain warrants publicly to conduct privacy invasions, at least we can ensure that
there is some level of transparency, which therefore opens the door for accountability.

We can't ignore the possibility of the worst case scenario: strong privacy laws making it impossible for
journalists and publishers to do their investigations and press duties legally. Anything that is
considered private, confidential or secret is now a crime to reveal under various laws that already
exist. Even if the information leads to more criminal actions, it would become inadmissible evidence,
as obtaining it would violate the right to privacy in the first place. If it is leaked illegally, even if the
leaker is captured and convicted, the damage is already done.

There can not be a guarantee to the 'Right to Privacy'. It needs to be clearly defined what constitutes
private and privileged communications, and what does not. We must unambiguously create laws that
define these boundaries, strictly. And we need to ensure that all privacy laws apply equally regardless
of the station in life or publicity of the person or organization involved. The challenge comes with
being aware of what the consequences of these laws are with regard to journalistic integrity and the
response to illegal violations of privacy and secrecy.

We cannot condone the actions of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks on one hand and then condemn
government agencies for doing the same thing - with the power of law and warrant on their side.
Both parties need to be held to the same standards and those legal boundaries must be clear enough
to prevent unwarranted snooping yet porous enough to permit reasonable investigative actions by
both journalists and government agencies.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

December 17, 2016 | Australian Federal Court Orders Block of The Pirate Bay and Others

Freedom Publishers Union learned on December 15, 2016, the Australian Federal Court handed down its judgment on the blocking of BitTorrent
website The Pirate Bay, along with several other websites - of which some are now defunct.

Primarily, the target of the case was demonstratively The Pirate Bay, as the Federal Court has ordered that the website must be blocked at
the ISP-level, by whatever means the ISP deems necessary to the acceptance and standards accepted by rights-holders - in this case primarily
led by Foxtel and Village Roadshow.

Freedom Publishers Union holds a very strong view on censorship matters and our position on this matter has never changed. We support freedom
of information and any technology that allows for freedom of the flow of information. This includes BitTorrent software and websites that index
and provide torrent and magnet information.

Copyright requires much reform. This is very well known. If proper copyright reform was to be pursued, with the intention of the addition of
fair-use clauses and appropriate provisions, it would have a much greater effect on reducing piracy levels than simple attempts of
website/domain blocking. ie. Censorship.

We believe the existence of The Pirate Bay and other websites that permit for the freedom and dissemination of digital information on a mass
scale should be acknowledged for their technical expertise, abilities and implementation and the possibilities that they enable by allowing for
the very freedom of information, distribution and dissemination that we refer to.

We believe that they should never be used as a pawn for fighting for copyright protection by incoherent media companies and rights-holders
which continue to demonstrate their absolute lack of understanding of the larger issues. This is not new, as has been done in the past many
times and continues with this latest case and judgment which has resulted in another country (Australia) paving the way for blocking measures to
be implemented. We also believe that this is the very first step towards greater implementation of censorship of Australian internet.

We will continue to fight for and advocate for freedom of information and will always oppose against censorship and attacks against net
neutrality.

Freedom Publishers Union will oppose the judgment to the fullest extent and advocate that all blocking measures be reversed and seriously
reviewed so a better solution can be established with the pursuit and addition of copyright reform.

Additionally, Freedom Publishers Union will continue to distribute software that will bypass such blockages and offer a level of security
and anonymity, through digital dissemination and distribution of Tor Browser packages and its source code. We will also continue to operate
our own The Pirate Bay sub-domain which redirects to the official domain name. If this results in blocked pages being displayed, as it will be
dependent on the blocking techniques implemented by the ISPs in Australia, then we will guide our website users to information that will
instruct them to download and install Tor Browser, so that the intended website(s) and page(s) can then be accessed - securely and with
anonymity.

Heading into 2017, we will strive to continue to oppose governments, their associated agencies and departments that implement any kind of
censorship on Australian users, as we will proceed to do the same in any country implementing censorship on its internet users.

Finally, and in conclusion, we will continue to push for copyright reform and the addition of fair use clauses and provisions.

Copyright reform and fair use are the solution to combat mass global piracy, not censorship. Information should be free. That is what
Freedom Publishers Union will continue to fight for.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

November 30, 2016 | UK Now Has Legalized Dragnet Mass-Surveillance. Carry On, Nothing to See Here.

Soon, the Investigatory Powers Bill will become law in the United Kingdom. The Bill is also commonly
referred to as the "Snoopers Charter" or simply the "IP Bill", and has passed both Houses in the UK
Parliament. Sadly, there was very little attention given to its finer details, nor was it really put under
the required scrutiny. And, it seems there was very little interest in any amendments being put forth
which put any kind of restraint on the powers that the Bill enables. The only effective amendment
was protective measures that allow for Parliamentarians and specific Government officials to be
excluded from exposure to the Bill's Provisions.

Under the provisions of the IP Bill, it allows for lawful hacking by police, security and intelligence
services which can include computer networks, mobile devices and servers. Methods can include
interference using existing vulnerabilities known, in software to gain access, to extract data or
monitor the device and input/output data.

The only requirement for these tasks to be carried out and be deemed legal, is for a warrant to be
obtained.

At the time of going to press, It remains unclear of the broader terms surrounding 'bulk hacking',
with the Provision allowing for data gathering from a large number of devices in a specific location.
This can include foreign regions suspected of terrorism activity. Concerns are present, that data of
untargeted and unknowing civilians will be caught up in this mass-surveillance Clause, which uses
terms much too broad and very non-specific and allowing for extended surveillance techniques to be
carried out by UK law enforcement and intelligence officials. This is effectively dragnet surveillance.

Some measures are being taken to include steps are implemented to oversee activities and to attend
to any problems that shall arise. This will be handled by an Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC)
and Judicial Commissioners, which will be appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, currently
Theresa May.

The IPC will audit legislation compliance of hacking and surveillance operations and carry out
investigations into operations mismanagement, if required. Reporting and recommendations
determined by the IPC are to be made public.

Mandatory data retention of 12 months is to be maintained, with requirement for data to be stored
which includes web browsing history and connections. This data will be accessible to police, law
enforcement and intelligence agencies. Combined, making these some of the most invasive data
retention measures in the democratic world. Concerns over the precision and amount of data being
required to be stored is mounting and the fact can't be ignored of the immense pressure which gets
applied on internet service providers (ISPs). This has been witnessed first-hand by financial constraints
and pressure on limited resources with ISPs in Australia - a country which has similar provisions for
data retention requirements, albeit meta-data only being retained.

Under the IP Bill, data must include websites visited, servers accessed, day, date, time, where it was
accessed from and using what device on what network. In short, the Investigatory Powers Bill has just
legalized dragnet mass-surveillance in the UK. Again, warrants must be obtained, but we suspect this
will be much too easy, enabling access of private data.

Privacy has been eroded to almost nothing, with the upcoming enactment of the Snoopers Charter.
Civil liberties that lead to the right to privacy, has been eaten into, in large bites.

Freedom Publishers Union urges citizens to play on the side of caution. More thought and
consideration of steps to implement encryption to enhance ones privacy must now become priority.
Also, we need to make it difficult as possible for authorities to collect the data in the first place. This
can be achieved by using tools which aim to implement anonymous internet access, by using Tor
Browser which connects to the encrypted internet network of Tor, also referred to as "The Onion
Router".

We must remember to call this invasive legislation out for what it is - Snoopers Charter. We must
continue to apply pressure on future legislators which can make future amendments which will see
even a slight amount of curbing of some of the worst Clauses and Provisions, which allow for this
mass-surveillance to continue under the banners of 'legality'. And, we must continue to see that the
Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Judicial Commissioners are held accountable for their
actions, if they fail to fulfill their duties of oversight of surveillance operations and their compliance
with the legislation set before the citizens of the UK. Civil liberties have been violated - a common
theme which has been replicated by many democratic governments across the globe.

Once invasive legislation which legalizes sweeping, dragnet mass-surveillance is enacted and made
law, focus must shift to amending the legislation and implement the most important amendments
which aim to curb at least some of the most invasive measures. Where violation of civil liberties has
occurred, this must be counter-balanced by operations transparency and accountability being
ensured through people power, by those who remain strong enough to stand up for civil rights, their
liberties and the right to privacy in the digital sphere.

Asylum seekers and refugees - these are incredibly messy topics because they need to be viewed with
x-ray vision of economics and politics, and not just through the rosy glasses of humanitarianism.

There is one reason people become refugees: they want to survive. Sometimes this is a literal survival:
escaping from Syria and ISIS is an existential issue for most refugees. But most of the time, survival is
defined in quality of life terms. Starving in the streets of Myanmar might be existential too, but often
it's a matter of wanting a better life, not necessarily escaping death.

Creating a "humanitarian crisis" is a well-known tactic used by governments to change their
population and send messages. Consider the Mariel "boat-lift" that came from Cuba to Miami which
resulted in an influx of about 125,000 political refugees to the United States of America. Mixed in to
that were a small, yet significant percentage of hardened criminals and mental patients, intentionally
released into the refugee stream by Cuba to clear the jails. Overall, the Mariel refugees integrated
into the US with very few problems. Even in Miami, where a large number stayed after being
processed through refugee camps, had no long-term impact in its economy with the large influx of
Cuban unskilled labor.

The majority of these people were political refugees in the classic sense: they faced imprisonment in
Cuba for their religious and political beliefs and therefore, met the international criteria for refugee
status. But unlike many other refugees, they also had massive support from their associated
community in America. The Cuban-American community of Miami stepped up to orchestrate and
execute the rescue of these immigrants and provided support to the Government in processing and
relocating the refugees. While there were some problems associated with what was perceived to be
incarceration of the refugees (in Arkansas, a riot at the refugee processing center established at Fort
Chaffee caused the then-Governor Bill Clinton to lose re-election because of racist campaigning
triggered by the riots), the crisis was completely abated within 3 years.

Today, we see the same scenario playing out in many places around the world. However, this time the
cases of the refugees aren't as easy to make as it was for those from the Cuban dictatorship.

A similar scenario occurred in the US at the end of the Vietnam war. Hundreds of thousands of
refugees left Vietnam and came to the US. Like the Cuban situation, they received massive support
from Vietnamese-Americans, mostly those living in Southern California, providing them the resources
to integrate into existing Vietnamese enclaves in the area and entering the economy. Today these
ex-refugees are well-integrated into American society.

Australia, on the other hand, is facing a different problem. Most of the refugees arriving on the
doorstep are from war zones in Islamic countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Sri Lanka etc. Most of
these people are legitimate asylum seekers: they are under threat of death and violence because of
their politics or religious beliefs and see no alternative but immigration to escape death and torture.

Some are economic asylum seekers: they seek a better, not necessarily a safer, life in another country.
But the majority can claim true threat to their lives and usually have extensive documentation to
support their claims.

The problem for Australian refugees is that they do not have the same support structure awaiting
them as the Cuban and Vietnamese did in the US. Most of them are Muslim and come from cultures
that are radically different than the Western, Euro-centric culture that permeates America and
Australia and Europe. Many aspects of their culture and religion run completely counter to the social
norms of Western society, making their integration problematic unless they are willing to change
their values and beliefs to potentially fit into their new society.

Without the social structure of enclaves of familiar religious and cultural environments in which to
settle, these refugees are at an insurmountable disadvantage in attempting to immigrate to Australia.
While they may be legitimate refugees, there is - literally - nowhere for them to 'go' in Australia.
There isn't a large Muslim, Afghan, Syrian or any other community that has the ability to accept these
people and provide the environment to integrate them into their new lives. (Some of the refugees are
Christians: these people will most likely find sponsorship in Australia or at least support to assist them
in relocating to an accepting environment.)

Australia is not the place these refugees need to escape to. They need to go to a country that has the
cultural and support system in place to accept them as they are and help them transition to a more
Western society in various progressive stages. Where would those places be? Often the places they
are refugees from; Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt - basically any Muslim
nation that isn't in the middle of a civil war. The only problem is that most of those places have the
same problem with these refugees that their home country did; they are not a 'compatible' sect of
Islam that fit in with the religion and mores of other Muslim nations either.

Australia is caught in a nasty situation here. These refugees don't (and won't) fit into Australian
society. They are outcasts from their home countries, but not because they are adherents to the
'Great Satan' of Western culture; rather because they don't fit into the Muslim culture either. The are
the equivalent of those crazy sects of Christians in the US that want to essentially create their own
country and rules and won't accept that other people may not want to follow them. In the US, these
people usually end up locked up in Federal prison for life, simply because they violate nearly every
felony law there is; ranging from tax avoidance to child abuse to murder. Or they all die in a horrific
shoot-out and fire with ATF agents.

The problem that Australia is having is not that the Government is intentionally being cruel and
inhumane to these people through increased tightening of immigration policy and legislation,
although it may seem that way. The problem is that Australia is actually trying to accommodate
asylum seekers and refugees by keeping them somewhere safe and to themselves (rather than on
Australian mainland) where they don't have to face the culture shock of Western life and society
without the appropriate support mechanism in-place. The asylum seekers just keep coming faster
than Australia can process them. And unlike the US, it doesn't have the relocation facilities at old
military bases that can be used to manage the refugees until they can be absorbed by greater society.

If these people had come to the US, they would be sponsored by people from Detroit or Minneapolis -
two of the largest concentrations of Muslims of all types outside of the Middle-East or the Far East.
There would be support culture and people to help them and they would eventually fit in and maybe
even move on to other places as American citizens. In Europe, refugees have been accepted into
areas where there are culturally similar enclaves and accommodation is being made available for
them. However, even in Europe, which has the largest number of Muslims overall outside of their
home countries, acceptable space is running out to continue to accept more refugees. The sudden
rise of anti-Islam feelings in Europe isn't just because of xenophobia: it's because the communities
that can accept these people are saturated at present and as they arrive in Germany, Romania or
other countries, they end up in yet another ad-hoc refugee camp. There's just no more space right
now to take them in.

Australia could, given a couple of years and several hundred millions of dollars, build a proper refugee
processing facility and create 'cultural cities' for these people to reside, while acclimatizing to
Australian life. But not today. And given the images that are being pirated out of these camps,
probably not ever. Anyone can understand why the Australian Government wants to keep these
places and their operations secret. It's not because of the inhumane treatment of the asylum seekers
and refugees, but that with the numbers arriving there is no other place for them to go. It's like the
camps in Greece or other places in Europe where conditions are worsening each day. As quickly as
one person is processed and relocated, twenty more show up in their place.

As military conflict continues around the world, in many zones increasingly getting worse, the cycle
will continue and the global refugee problem will continue to grow.

Australia has been stating ever since the beginning: "DO NOT COME TO AUSTRALIA! STAY AT HOME
OR GO ELSEWHERE! WE CAN'T HELP YOU!". The Government has been doing everything it can to help.
It's just that is has become a case of too much, too quickly.

Finally, another factor in all of this is most of the asylum seekers heading to Australia are using illegal
smugglers to get there. They aren't using relief agencies or Muslim organizations to coordinate their
movement - although the Vietnamese that came to California often used the same methods. The
difference is in the numbers of people doing it. Most of the Vietnamese came under the sponsorship
of churches and organizations from the Vietnamese community. The Cubans were handled
completely by the Cuban-American community of Miami, which did the outreach and coordination
with the US Government to process the refugees. But even that had problems. When a paid smuggler
ships people to Australia, they're not interested in making all the connections, doing the paperwork
and ensuring those on board the boats have the appropriate documentation to legalize their arrival,
as a refugee. All the people smugglers want is their money. Without those groups of churches and
communities from the same background to help, asylum seekers are truly on a one-way ticket. There
is no coordination - just boats appearing with more people.

Before condemning the Australian Government for its 'failure' at the asylum seeker and refugee
situation, we need to think about what is 'really happening' here, and how different it is from the
successful migrations of the Cubans and Vietnamese in the United States of America.

America is on the verge of another wave of migrants washing up on its shores very soon; all the
people from Venezuela that are being starved to death because of their failure to deal with the real
world. Already, many countries in South and Central America are taking refugees from there, but
they're about to become overrun the same as Australia or Eastern Europe. And, of course, they'll just
keep sending the refugees north until they wash up on the beaches of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia and Florida. And once again, America will have to deal with them. The only problem;
Americans are now very xenophobic and are not going to tolerate any humanitarian effort that they
see as 'more Mexicans'.

The Catholic church will be key in handling this, but there's only so much even they can do. Outside of
Louisiana, Catholics are not looked upon very highly (American Protestants have always had problems
with Catholics, treating them almost as badly as the Jews), and they won't get a lot of help from other
churches with this crisis. With Donald Trump as President and a full Republican Congress, the
Government sure isn't looking like it's going to help. So we may have our own Nauru and Manus
Island going on in the US soon.

It was an explosive revelation when Reuters published details of Yahoo Inc. providing direct assistance
to the conglomerate which has become internationally recognized as the world's mass-surveillance
state, the United States of America and primarily, the NSA and its international intelligence partners.

Details have emerged that Yahoo has cooperated directly, with a demand from the US Government
providing the platform for enablement of sweeping surveillance by scanning all incoming Yahoo
customer emails, for specific keywords and character strings. The practice was carried out by Yahoo,
by providing the tools to enable and perform the email scanning.

According to details since revealed, Yahoo performed the sweep by modifying existing source code
for a program the company already uses to scan and identify malware inside its customer emails. The
new program was developed through heavy code modification, which resulted in a complete new
program going live on Yahoo servers. The program was then used at the hands of Yahoo, in direct and
undisputed co-operation and as demanded by the US Government intelligence officials.

One of the most disturbing elements is that Yahoo representatives never disputed, questioned or
resisted the demand. Exact details of the legal demand for Yahoo to perform the sweeping
surveillance have not yet been revealed at the time of going to press. We do expect the precise legal
details and documentation to be treated with a high amount of secrecy - much like all operations
directly related to the US mass-surveillance programs.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns such undisputed sweeping surveillance and untargeted
mass-surveillance on any scale. Any digital surveillance should be targeted and have a legally obtained
warrant provided. When Apple was asked to assist the FBI with the cracking of one of the company's
iPhone devices in the San Bernadino case, Apple stood by its company standards and refused to
cooperate. Apple's decision must not be confused here, as it is to quickly make an assumption which
is wrong. Whilst the legal side of this case gets much more complicated, what we learned from the
public perspective is that Apple is willing to stand its ground, stand by its products and uphold the
privacy which is enabled by the provided security on Apple devices.

The iPhone in the San Bernadino case was eventually cracked and data accessed with the efforts of a
third-party security company and without any involvement from Apple. Yet we must note that Apple
never relented or caved into the mass-surveillance institute led by the US Government. Yahoo Inc. has
let its customers down, by simply cooperating with the mass-surveillance regime, without question
and with a certain amount of enthusiasm from the company's CEO, Marissa Mayer. According to
sources inside Yahoo, it has been said that Mayer's actions, judgment and lack of questioning of the
reasons for the demanding of email sweeping caused some major disunity among the executive ranks
of Yahoo.

Freedom Publishers Union maintains our view that digital surveillance measures should be carried out
as targeted operations based on a legally obtained warrant and must be absolutely justified.

As we continue to debate privacy, encryption and civil liberties, this case could easily become a
reason to begin to question whether any progress has in fact been made since the debate become
mainstream back in 2013. We believe it is fair to point out that progress is being made by a majority
of the big technology companies, who wish the gain back the trust of their customers through
providing better security and encryption for their services. Things are much better that just two years
ago. Yet equally, we still have a long way to go.

The institute of American-led mass-surveillance continues and the legal loopholes that exist are being
found and abused by the institute as a means to justify their actions and be able to publicly claim their
operations 'are legal'. Legal - perhaps. Ethically responsible and acceptable - absolutely not.
Mass surveillance must stop. Sweeping surveillance must stop. The constant attempts of intelligence
agencies and their legal goons to use whatever means to find these legal loopholes and policy makers
deliberately creating the loop holes so they can be exploited by the mass-surveillance institute must
also stop.

Finally, technology companies must continue to provide better security for their customers, not only
through their services and products, but backed up by said company standing firm against untargeted
surveillance.

In this latest case, Yahoo Inc. has failed on all counts. We have lost what little respect we had for
company. Will it hurt the company's bottom line? Probably a little bit. But probably not much. What is
guaranteed to stain Yahoo's immediate public image and become a sore spot of its history, is its
failure to stand by and protect the privacy and rights of its customers in favor of preferring to
collaborate with the US mass-surveillance program and becoming a direct initiator of a sweeping
surveillance program through the development of software that Yahoo developed.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

September 1, 2016 | France Leading Charge for EU and Global Push for Anti-Encryption Legislation

For just once, we wish that all sides of the encryption wars would agree on a cease fire and public and
governments accept that encryption is a tool and not an end-all in itself.

Freedom Publishers Union has published much content and documents supporting encryption. We
are known advocates for encryption and see it as a vital tool to enhance individual's privacy. But not
just encryption - strong encryption. We understand its abilities to protect the privacy of an
individual's data - which is the purpose of encryption.

Equally, we understand that it is not a government's place to tamper with or modify to any extent
encryption algorithms or access methods - ie. implementing government sponsored compulsory
backdoors.

We stand by and always aim to protect the civil liberties of individuals and their absolute right to
protect their own privacy. The connected world as we know it (as the internet) is under constant
mass-surveillance. Thankfully, in a relatively short amount of time since we learned of PRISM and its
associated spying programs, the digital world has come a long way, as has encryption. But there is still
a long way to go, as we are nowhere near where we should be for protecting ourselves from these
mass-surveillance programs. The tools are readily available. The software is already out there and
most of it already open-source and known to have not been tampered with. When potential
vulnerabilities are detected, patches are quickly developed and pushed out to the public through the
open-source distribution model.

During the month of August, France made calls for nations in the European Union to unite and
campaign against the use of encryption. It has specifically called upon Germany for help, to get the
country to start drumming up support for a campaign to stop implementation of strong encryption.
This is a time when the citizens must equally unite and fight back, in support of strong encryption.

Why is France complaining about encryption? According to a recent article published by news giant
Reuters, France believes one of the reasons they are struggling to thwart terrorist attacks on home
soil is because of encryption. The article specifically points out Telegram and its implementation of
end-to-end encryption.

This all needs to be kept in perspective; there are lots of good people, businesses and non-profit
organizations that use encryption software on a daily basis, in a completely innocent manner - which
is to enhance their privacy and protect important data. No harm intended, encryption used for
protection of data and to maintain privacy of legitimate behavior. Whether this data needs to be
protected or should be protected is not for governments to make that judgment. It is the right of civil
liberties of any individual to make the call whether they want their data protected. Simply standing up
and touting that the 'terrorists are using encryption, let's stop all use of encryption' is not only taking
the entire thing out of context and perspective, but it also underlines the failings, again, of the
understanding of the purpose of encryption.

Telegram has been heavily criticized for its method of encryption and the implementation of its
algorithms which used to protect the communications of its users. This criticism has mostly come
from respected members of the crypto community. However, there are some conflicts in the validity
of the criticism and the actual reliance of the security measures by Telegram. The claims by French
authorities that Telegram is a major cause for concern because terrorists are using the software's
encrypted chat ability to organize and communicate their operations and their apparent inability to
penetrate the software's encryption provide much merit to the software security mode, despite the
criticism posed by security researchers.

Freedom Publishers Union takes encryption seriously and we would actually like to see more software
services take encryption and its security abilities much more serious. There are still many software
services that are used on a daily basis that are still rendered insecure because there is simply no
implementation of encryption. However, technology companies claim to be working on more secure
implementations of their services, albeit the development and roll out has been slow to date. Despite
the Silicon Valley consistently telling us 'we are working on it' and 'it is coming'.

The new French-born attack on encryption (with more EU countries most likely to join), is unjustified.
By claiming that use of encryption must be reduced, stopped or backdoors implemented (by law) so
governments and their law enforcing and intelligence agencies can snoop around their respective
citizens' data is just another gross display that governments still do not understand the pillars of
encryption, its purpose and how it actually enables security conscious citizens to protect themselves
and their data from the 'bad guys'. Even worse, they're having to use it to protect themselves from
their own governments too.

When citizens become scared of the bad people in society, there is most likely issues with rising crime.
But when citizens become scared of the bad people within the governments they entrust their
confidence, yet who have apparently become absolutely and certifyingly obsessed with knowing
everything about everyone and then sharing that information with their international allies, then its
another demonstration of the veracity of the ongoing crypto wars and the wider implications of the
ongoing mass-surveillance programs.
Unfortunately, the war is between the government and the citizenry - rather than between the
government and the bad people.

It's about how we look at it.

Encryption can be viewed and examined from many different aspects. All issues surrounding
encryption need to be kept in perspective, otherwise it can be confusing and information that should
be of relevant importance becomes just a mess.

Strong encryption is no different than a strong safe. A safe is used to store valuable or secret
information, with the assumption that it will be very difficult for anyone to open it without
authorization. Law enforcement has been dealing with safes for centuries. If the owner refuses to
provide or authorize access, they are held in contempt and law enforcement then has the authority -
under a legally obtained warrant - to break into the safe.

Companies like Chubb or Diebold certainly do not build backdoors into their products simply because
law enforcement would 'like to have them'. And any attempt to pass legislation that would require a
master key to all safes - including banks - would be stopped at the doors of Congress.

Encryption should be treated the same way. In the most famous case to date - breaking into the
iPhone that was used by the San Bernardino murderers - the phone was effectively cracked without
the assistance of Apple, the carrier or the deceased owner. No one was forced to reveal secrets that
made every other device insecure. Although challenges were made to weaken the safe of encryption,
nothing was actually legislated and no contempt charges against Apple or the carriers were filed.

This is exactly the way it should be. Treat encryption and safes the same way and be done with these
legislative tantrums. It must be understood, if law enforcement does break encryption while
executing a warrant, they do not have to share the method with anyone. If they can keep the 'secret'
to breaking into an iPhone, then they are welcome to it. All this means is that the defense has to keep
working to fix bugs and improve safety. Just as the offense continues to work on breaking through
into the safe. Because eventually any such 'secret' will be revealed, the bug fixed and everyone goes
back to square one.

Remember that this approach is completely within the boundaries of the Constitution or Charter of
most Western nations today. Receiving court permission to gather evidence means that a robust case
was made that convinced a judge that there was merit in allowing the action to proceed. And if the
warrant was issued without due process, there is redress in law for the plaintiff. If the laws
surrounding the execution of these very important components of fair jurisprudence and law
enforcement are broken in the execution or obtaining of a warrant, then this can be raised
immediately and further legal action taken. We know that this works, as there are hundreds of cases
dismissed because of improper procedure every year, including some high-profile cases dealing with
exactly this issue in the mass collection of citizen's information in America.

So we come to the conclusion.

Security researchers and cryptologists have been here so many times before. We pose the same
argument for encryption, defining it's importance and presenting scenarios to attempt to justify our
argument. Those against encryption do the same.

If one was to be uninformed of the definition and purpose of encryption and read media accounts of
the arguments and government calls for anti-encryption legislation, it would all seem so simple. "Bad
guys are doing bad things with software that allows them to mask their operations and
communications." When looking at it through the glasses of realism, you understand the complexities
of encryption - its history - its intended purpose - and how it surrounds us already through technology
integration. This is too often over-looked when calls are made to reign in encryption use.

We remain confident that common-sense will prevail in the long-term, however it does not mean that
we must remain complacent. We will not stand by and watch encryption and security software be
attacked. Freedom Publishers Union remains dedicated to upholding civil liberties for all citizens
around the world, including encryption and privacy.

Freedom Publishers Union is yet to view any actual EU legislative proposal which has potential to
affect, change or outlaw encryption from the current form. We will watch with a keen eye and publish
any documents as they become available.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

August 27, 2016 | European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers

A just-leaked draft impact assessment on the modernization of European copyright rules could spell
the end for many online services in Europe as we know them. The document's recommendations
foreshadow new a EU Directive on copyright to be introduced later this year, that will ultimately bind
each of the European Union's 28 member states. If these recommendations by the European
Commission are put in place, Europe's internet will never be the same, and these impacts are likely to
reverberate around the world.

The 182-page document identifies three general objectives-ensuring wider access to content,
adapting copyright exceptions to the digital and cross-border environment, and achieving a
well-functioning marketplace for copyright. In this initial article we examine the recommendations
that fall under the third of these three objectives, which are amongst the most alarming proposals,
including new obligations on Internet platforms, and new copyright-like powers for news publishers.

More specifically, this article will look at two of the proposals for what the Commission calls
"upstream" problems, or difficulties faced by copyright owners in extracting value from the use of
content online. We'll deal with other parts of the document in later posts.

"Sharing of Value" Proposal Exposes Rights-holder Greed

The assumption that copyright owners should be entitled to share in any value created by online
platforms is never really examined by the Commission. The theory is that because online platforms
are doing rather well in the digital environment, and because traditional publishing industries are
doing less well, this gives the publishers some kind of claim to share in the profits of the platforms. It's
a questionable starting point, and as we'll see, the recommendations that flow from it are
ill-considered and harmful.

The first of the two problems that copyright owners supposedly face in extracting such value is that
there is a large amount of user-generated content uploaded by users to sharing platforms, and that
European law does not place an obligation on platforms to proactively police this content for possible
copyright infringement, but instead relies on the latter to identify that the material has been
uploaded without authorization and to request its removal. That existing law strikes a reasonable
balance, similar to Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US.

Major entertainment companies characterize this as a problem because it means that copyright
owners have less ability to ask online platforms to pay licensing fees for their content. In the case of
user-generated content platforms (think YouTube and SoundCloud), the platform can simply offer to
remove a copyright-owner's content rather than paying for it-or, in practice, to voluntarily offer a
compromise such as YouTube's Content ID that automatically scans uploaded content and shares ad
revenues for content identified as the copyright owner's.

As for platforms that offer access to their own library of content (think Netflix and Spotify),
rights-holders contend that they may be willing to pay less in order to remain competitive with the
user-generated content platforms. In either case, major copyright holders contend that platforms
should be paying them more for the content that the platforms make available online.

The European Commission's proposed solution, however, is worse than the supposed problem. The
Commission is proposing that user-generated content platforms should be forced to seek, in good
faith, to conclude private agreements with copyright owners and to put in place "appropriate and
proportionate content identification technologies". In short, the use of something like YouTube's
Content ID system is being made compulsory.

This is a treacherous idea for many reasons, but just to give two:

1. Automated systems, no matter how technically sophisticated, can never replace human
judgment about whether user generated content infringes copyright. This is because copyright
exceptions that exist in the United States (such as fair-use) and in various forms across Europe
(such as quotation, parody, and news reporting), mean that not every act of copying is an
infringement. As a result, Content ID-type systems will inevitably misflag content, and wrongly
allow a copyright claimant to monetize it or take it down.

2. Content ID-type systems are extremely expensive. YouTube reportedly spent $60 million on the
development of Content ID, but even if a new entrant would have to spend a small fraction of
that on a similar system, that would still be an insurmountable obstacle to the majority of small
and medium enterprises, and to non-profit organizations and users ranging from Wikipedia, all
the way down to your brother who hosts a fan-art message board on a desktop PC in his
bedroom.

More broadly, this kind of insidious regime of private agreements pushed by government is the kind
of cop-out from good lawmaking that EFF calls "Shadow Regulation"; a concept that we'll be
introducing in more depth in subsequent Deeplinks posts, where we will give some other examples of
the same. But in short, such agreements can embody the worst of all possible approaches, by
combining the coercion of government regulation, with the lack of accountability of corporate
self-regulation.

A Link Tax in Favor of News Publishers

The European Commission doesn't stop there, but also has a similarly ham-fisted proposal to address
the declining revenues of news publishers from their print publications, which leaves them with fewer
resources to continue to invest in journalism.

We have previously agreed that this is a real problem. But where the Commission errs is to pin
responsibility for this problem on the reuse of news content by web platforms under exceptions to
copyright; and it compounds this error by seeking to limit their use of such copyright exceptions going
forward.

The Commission's proposal is to award publishers a new copyright-like veto power, layered on top of
the copyright that already exists in the published content, allowing them to prevent the online reuse
of news content even when a copyright exception applies. This veto power may last for as little as one
year, or as many as 50-the Commission leaves this open for now.

This kind of veto power has been described as a link tax-notwithstanding the Commission's
protestations that it isn't one-because when the publisher controls even the use of small snippets of
news text surrounding a hyperlink to the original article, it essentially amounts to a tax on that link.
The result, as seen in Spain, will be the closure of online news portals, and a reduction in traffic to
news publishers.

A new wrinkle on this link tax proposal is that the Commission also proposes that publishers who have
received a transfer of copyright from authors should also be entitled to collect revenue from
whatever copyright levies member states may impose to "compensate" authors for use of their
content under copyright exceptions. The notion that "compensation" is needed for users exercising
their rights under copyright is a thoroughly perverse one, as we have previously explained. This
addition to the link tax proposal is a gift to copyright collecting societies that will further increase the
cost and complexity of lawfully reusing content.

What Happens Now?

The impact assessment is not yet a draft law, but it is a crystal clear indication from the European
Commission about the content of the law that is is proposing to develop as a draft for approval by the
other European institutions, namely the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union.
Users will have further opportunities for input into the proposals when they reach that stage.
But we'll have the best chance of stopping these misguided proposals if European officials are alerted
to our concerns right away. They need to understand that Internet users won't accept the "Shadow
Regulation" of intermediaries by requiring them to enter into expensive and error-prone
arrangements with copyright owners for the automating flagging of user content. Neither will they
accept a new "link tax" for news publishers that could stifle the dissemination of news online.

July 13, 2016 | An Appeal for the Reduction of Confinement of Chelsea Manning

Freedom Publishers Union has consistently called for better treatment of Chelsea Manning and our
call for Clemency remains.

Most notable Chelsea Manning leaks:

Afghan War Diary

Iraq War Diary

Cablegate

Collateral Murder" video

"Granai Massacre" video [unreleased to date]

Chelsea Manning completed her 6 years of imprisonment by May 21, 2016. While it is still a point to
ponder whether she should be called a whistleblower or a traitor, as she violated the terms and
conditions of her employer. She was charged with 16 charges including those under the Espionage Act
and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

At Freedom Publishers Union we do not declare whether her confinement is right or wrong, but to
analyze the fact that her punishment is much more than her crime (if whatever she did should be
referred to as a crime).

Allegations

Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) is responsible for the biggest military leak in
history [at the time of going to press], which showed the 'other' face of modern warfare. An aspect
our governments do not want us to know.

The first leak was a video of a US Army Apache helicopter brutally killing civilians in Baghdad, Iraq.
Helicopters misidentified two Reuters journalists as terrorists carrying guns. Without any warning or
opportunity to surrender, the video shows the helicopter's engagement, killing the innocent civilians.

Later, they also fired on a van which came on-site to collect the bodies of injured and dead. The
people from the van also received the same fate. Two children were also injured due to deliberate
civilian firing. The children were sitting in front seat of the van yet the pilots ignored the fact and
claimed that it was their fault that they bring children to a crime scene.

The video was leaked to Wikileaks which then produced the video and released it under the title of
"Collateral Murder". Many activists agreed on the name as the video clearly describes just that.
Manning also leaked ~91,000 reports covering the war from 2004 to 2010 known as "Afghan War
Diary". Reports also describe the number of persons stated to be killed, wounded or detailed during
the course of the war in Afghanistan.

The Afghan War Diary is the most significant archive about the reality of war to have ever been
released during the course of a war. The deaths of tens of thousands is normally only a statistic but
the archive reveals the locations and the key events behind each most of these deaths. "We hope its
release will lead to a comprehensive understanding of the war in Afghanistan and provide the raw
ingredients necessary to change its course", says Wikileaks Editor, Julian Assange.

Manning is also responsible for ~390,000 classified military documents on the war and occupation in
Iraq, from 2004 to 2009, as told by soldiers in the US Army. Notably, the months of May 2004 and
March 2009 are absent. This is known as "Iraq War Diary" and is one of the biggest military warfare
data leaks in history. The majority of deaths in the Iraq war is civilians (60%) which is [average] 31
civilians dying everyday over the span of 6 years. During that time Iraq was five times more lethal with
respect to equivalent population.

"Cablegate" is another affiliation of Manning's data leaks, in which ~250,000 US diplomatic cables
were leaked which comprised of talk from 274 embassies around the world. This data shows the
spying nature of US Government and how governments have many faces.

Appraisals

Since her confinement, Manning has been awarded many times. She is also three time nominee for
the Nobel Peace Prize. Which clearly indicates her good deeds towards the data leak concept. But as
the charges are applied on her, it is clearly a battle between law and ethics. Everyone must agree that
no law is flawless and ethics are the same throughout the world. We are taught from our early
childhood about how transparency, truth and honesty are essential qualities and one must do good
no matter what. Chelsea Manning did the right thing and got many appraisals for that but the law is
clearly not happy with her.

She was reported to authorities by one of her confidants, a renowned hacker [at the time]. After
confinement she stated that her intention was not to hurt anyone or give the leaked information into
the wrong hands, but to ensure transparency. Manning's leaked documents showed us how modern
warfare looks and how innocent civilians are caught up in conflict and killed because of corrupt and
unethical politics.

Many of us will agree that the Iraq and Afghan war(s) changed the world, but not for the better. The
Arab Spring is a result of multiple failures of US operations in these countries and their neighbors.

Then we have the violent terrorist group, known as "Islamic State [also known as ISIS, ISIL, Daesh]"
which effectively developed as a result of the power vacuum left by the Western invasion in the
Middle-East.

War is bad and these documents are proof of that.

Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die. --Herbert Hoover

This was not the first time when documents regarding the war became helpful and showed wider
harms to the rest of the world. The Diary of Anne Frank describes the situation of war [World War II,
1947] and today we can imagine the torridness of that era just by analyzing such documents. Back in
those days when Adolf Hitler was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize [1939], these documents show us
their importance. Some of us agree that single photo of Napalm Girl helped end the Vietnam War. So
we can say that the data leaks by Chelsea Manning is good for whole mankind.

Aftermath

Now, the more important thing is how this whole incident is going to affect all of us. Whistleblowers
are definitely seen as selfless martyrs doing the right thing for the right cause. But this incident shows
how whistleblower protection must be a real thing with real powers. And Manning's imprisonment
for this duration [35 years] is too much punishment and this contrasts with the decision of the rest of
the world where Manning is appreciated for her contributions. If the confinement period is not
reduced very soon, then surely whistleblowing will be a thing of the past and we will keep struggling
with corruption and selfishness of our leaders.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

July 9, 2016 | Data or Just Numbers? British Intelligence Gathering Dates Back to 1990's

On April 21, 2016, The Guardian published an article referencing documents released by Privacy
International which detailed extensive surveillance, which dates back to the 1990's and how it was to
be the primary source of intelligence gathering for Britain's intelligence organizations - GCHQ, MI5
and MI6.

Freedom Publishers Union has viewed the documents, which includes 116 documents detailing
intelligence gathering information across many hundreds of pages.

The document dump was provided by Privacy International.

Through our US Press Office, upon closer review of the document dump by Freedom Publishers Union
Sub-Editor, Brett Brennan, he provided the following analysis of the history of intelligence, whether
privacy still exists and how encryption is still so important, as failing on encryption marks you as just
another 'suspect' on a very long list.

I work with clients that take available data sources - most of them open in the public record - and use
data warehouses to compile multiple sources of information into a detailed profile of literally millions
of people. Financial institutions and risk analysis firms have access to additional private data which
they can legally, whilst following privacy guidelines, combine with other data sources - often the same
public data - to create even more detailed profiles of individuals. Then, law enforcement can take the
data and combine it with their legally obtained sources to create an even more detailed insight into
people's lives.

There are rules and laws surrounding what can and cannot be done with this information. Most of
these agencies work within those rules. Many of the rules didn't exist a decade ago, far less back
through the 20th century. FOIA works both ways: I can walk into a courthouse or records office and
look at data about anyone that is on public record, then take that information with me and composite
it with other information that obtain - legally and openly - from other sources and build a profile that
would be scary to anyone other than a data scientist.

What we all need to consider is not so much the collection and correlation of this data. What is far,
far more important is the uses that this data is often compiled for. Taking a bulk collection of CDR's
(Call Detail Records - telephone bills) and using it as an input into a profiling system doesn't violate
legal privacy. No one is identified in the bulk data, it's just data - impersonal, anonymous and massive.
Creating a profile of anyone based on the data in that data-set also isn't an invasion of privacy - it's
still just data, with more attributes.

It's only when that data is put through a filter and a model is created to use the data that we first
start getting close to pin-pointing the individuals contained within. It's all in the 'context of the use',
not the data itself, that defines an invasion of privacy or anonymity. And in most of the Western world,
that last step requires legal oversight.

Let me put it another way. My Wife mines huge amounts of data from public records doing genealogy
research. Most of the data she dumps, simply because it doesn't fit the model (family history) that
she is using as the filter criteria. She has "viewed" private information that is in the public domain, but
doesn't act on it. When she does use the data and enhances it with other sources, she can paint a
more detailed picture of the people that she is analyzing. Cheating husbands and wives can be
identified, splits in a family that even the family didn't know about at the time, along with a lot more
information about the financial and even mental state of those individuals that have their data in
public records.

But even armed with that information, she still has not violated any privacy laws of morals. Her
correlation is not the causation of the events that happened to these people. If she publishes the
newly correlated data - which she (and everybody else involved in genealogy research does) - she still
hasn't violated privacy laws. The data is in public domain and effectively, anyone can do the same
process and arrive at the same data-set. The consequence of this publication may cause people who
are unaware of the information to feel as though their privacy has been violated, simply because this
new view of the data breaks their preconceived and strongly held belief of what the 'story' of their
ancestors and living relatives is.

When a Government or other associated agency collects data, it is simply taking the data-sets and
correlating them into a suitable model. The result set is still nothing but just data, but it is now data
that meets the criteria of the model - the filter - being applied to it. It is only when that data is used to
precipitate an action does it trigger consequences.

This brings us to the 'real' fears about data collection. When there are thousands of laws being
enforced, all of us are in violation of some law at some point. Maybe we skipped out on paying a
parking ticket back in 1979 and that minor violation has gone to warrant for arrest due to the failure
to comply with the parking law. If that data is put into a database that any law enforcement agency
can access and they choose to check the ownership record of a vehicle against outstanding warrants
(mostly looking for stolen vehicles and criminals known to possess a specific vehicle), they might just
find that the person who skipped that $12 parking ticket is wanted back in Kansas City for a criminal
charge. They can then stop and arrest that person legally - and because there is a crime involved -
perform additional actions to determine if more crimes have been committed by that individual. Like
having an open beer can in the car, which remains a crime in most of the 50 States in the US, that
requires arrest and arraignment. So an unsuspecting person who has completely forgotten about a
trivial crime committed 20 years in the past and who has some trash in his car, ends up incarcerated
for a day or two, loses their driving privileges and pays a hefty $2000 fine.

People are scared of being arrested for something minor. This is simply because with new data
collection capabilities, law enforcement can uncover the violation and make a legal arrest. Cops have
been doing this for centuries without the help of bulk data collection. All computers do is make
enforcing the law - even completely trivial laws - that much easier.

Privacy is about hiding information. The same as State Secrets. The reason we hide information is to
prevent moral or legal implications to change our lives. If we had a single law - one single law - in
force throughout the world, there would be people who had violated it always worrying about being
caught. Discovery of this violation through data analysis would be a violation of their privacy. A
completely legal and acceptable violation because laws protect the rights of the many against the
transgressions of the few.

It can not be disputed that privacy is dead and gone. Never collecting any data won't change that. We
simply return to the halcyon days of the 1960's where testimony (unreliable) and opinions (less
reliable) substitute for evidence. Any laws we enact around the use of data to prevent unauthorized
use are completely mooted when we live our lives on Facebook and Twitter, literally.

Until strong and evolving encryption is used by everyone, then anyone who uses encryption will be
flagged by traffic analysis as a suspect. Instead, let's deal with privacy from the root cause backwards.
Let's fix the laws so that anyone can understand which law they violate immediately, rather than
worrying about something that they just don't know.

Data is extra-judicial. It has no value, use or worth as a raw piece of information. Phone numbers are
just a random string of numbers, until a model translates them into a useful piece of information.
Data is a Heisenberg uncertainty: until you give it context and a model, it doesn't exist. Only by
understanding the context of the data we generate in our life-wake can we understand its value. And
by removing the cause of the fear most people feel, more so in a post-Snowden era, they can get on
with their lives without worrying about who has access to their data. Because without laws to provide
context, it's just Heisenberg numbers.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

June 17, 2016 | Death Penalty: Is it Justified or Just Plain Wrong and Unethical?

May 13, 2016, The Guardian published an article on pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, and their decision to
ban its products, through increased control in an effort to ensure that the company's products are not
used for the purpose of lethal injection in prisons.

Freedom Publishers Union as an organization takes a strong stance against the death penalty in any
country. On June 9, 2015, we released a Press Statement which initiated our global condemnation
against any nation that practices the death penalty.

Death as a punishment has been the reason of debate for a long time. Before we start analyzing the
pros and cons of death as punishment, we must consider the opinions and mindset of whole
humanity.

In many religions, people celebrate the death as it appears to them as a gateway of another life. But
there are very few communities that celebrate the death of young ones.

It can not be questioned that death penalty is extreme punishment. Usually, we humans try to
separate some individuals from the rest of us because we think that these individuals are dangerous
to others as they violate some laws who are made for betterment of everyone. We hope that within
the time of solitude, that criminal will either learn to live as everyone or he/she will be too weak to
commit a crime after the solitude.

But a criminals perspective is totally different. Punishment for them is not related with introspection
but pain for them and their loved ones. They fear to commit crime because they and their loved ones
will be tortured for their heinous act. The gentlemen who decide the punishment for a criminal hope
that during the imprisonment, the person will look into their inner-self and he/she will try to be good.
But that is not true always.

Death punishment comes as a liberty to some criminals. They do not think much while committing a
crime because their pain is for once only. Above all these, terrorists affiliated with Jihad embrace
death. Their mindset tells them that death while committing a crime is guarantee to be martyr. They
believe and hope that after death they will go to heaven, so-called Jannat, where they'll be caressed
by fairies. These criminals are more worried about their after life. Death is not a punishment for them
at all. But these incidents encourage others like them to commit crime and reserve some place in
heaven.

While we are talking about artificial death, we must make equal consideration of euthanasia. It is also
known as "death due to mercy". Euthanasia can be categorized in different ways, which include
voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries.
Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent unavailable) is illegal in all countries, as we understand.

Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's will) is also illegal in all
countries and is usually considered murder.

Methods which are used to carry out euthanasia are selected in such a way that the candidate feels
the least amount of pain. But the same is true for the death penalty as well, or supposedly. We stress
there are many cases and claims of abuse of the practice of the death penalty through lethal injection.
And these claims can not be ignored. Some countries do not kill people for crime. Other countries
who still believe in law and democracy attempt to use the least painful method for death. In India,
where hanging is method for death, the executioner prepares a special rope for hanging. He will even
go to lengths to apply wax on the rope so that death is instantaneous and painless.

So we can see that criminals fear of pain and the ultimate penalty of death does not provide the pain
they should in-fact be afraid of. While a majority of criminals embrace death. In all ways, the death
penalty is totally illogical because people who commit the heinous crimes and get punished by death
are abnormal people. They are mentally unstable and not enough attention is paid to this fact and the
immediate need for more medical treatment, as an alternative to the death penalty.

However, the death penalty itself is not designed to impact the mental state of the individual being
killed. Rather, it is intended to act as a deterrent to those elements of society that may be
contemplating the commission of a heinous crime. It also acts to provide a sense of justice to other,
'decent' people in that society: the perpetrator of this horrid, heinous crime is being removed
completely from society for all eternity.

It is this distinction that centers the debate on societal ritual killing for justice. The debate is whether
the death penalty is a sufficient deterrent to others and if it truly provides society with the catharsis
and closure needed to heal from the emotional upset of the crime.

In most modern societies, the majority of murders are committed as crimes of passion. They are the
result of a momentary event that causes insanity in the perpetrator. Enough to override their instilled
morality. It is difficult to see societal value in death as punishment for these crimes. Many of these
perpetrators end up committing suicide on their own when the impact of their actions finally hits
them.

The few murders that remain - those committed by psychopaths and fanatics (which are just a special
case of psychopath) - are not going to feel remorse over their crime. Indeed, most feel satisfaction as
a result of their actions and are expecting complete release and approbation from their deaths.
Keeping them alive does nothing to cause remorse; killing them does nothing but satisfy them.

In these cases, the benefit to the greater society needs to be analyzed. If society is going to benefit
psychologically from their killing, then it would be best to provide this closure, as the perpetrator just
doesn't care. However, the way that the killing is done may need to be altered in order for it to not
only assuage society's feelings, but to send a message to other potential murderers that this will not
get them the satisfaction they want. This would probably involve setting aside the "cruel and unusual"
punishment clauses that promise a humane death. How this is done is a topic for another debate on
this already very complex and sensitive topic.

Freedom Publishers Union originally raised concerns over Australia's Border Force legislation in an Editorial
published on June 25, 2015.

The Border Force Bill 2015 contains disturbing elements which aim to gag whistleblowers who could potentially
speak out against Government wrongdoing or from associated organizations contracted by the Australian
Government.

Detainees on Australia's off-shore detention facilities of Nauru and Manus Island are held under conditions
which have been deemed to violate international treaties on human rights. Amnesty International called the
conditions witnessed on Nauru "a human rights catastrophe".

Freedom Publishers Union has continuously raised concerns over the conditions of detainees of Australia's
off-shore detention facilities. Additionally, our calls have remained consistent that the conditions on these
facilities that asylum seekers and refugees are held under is ethically and morally unacceptable and a
violation of human rights.

In another Editorial published on October 2014, questions were being raised whether Australia was following
the basic principles set out in the United Nations - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Then on April 26, 2016, came a landmark decision from Papua New Guinea's Supreme Court, which concluded that
the detention of asylum seekers and refugees on Manus Island is illegal, a violation of the country's
Constitution and a violation of human rights and civil liberties. Further, the Supreme Court urged both Papua
New Guinea and Australia to take immediate steps to ensure detainees have freedom of passage and movement.
Justice Terence Higgins said that to continuously have those seeking refugee status "as prisoners irrespective
of their circumstances or status, is to offend against their rights and freedoms".

Freedom Publishers Union has accessed the legal document released from the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea.
Australia's public broadcaster ABC, aired on its television program Four Corners, details of the stories from
former medical staff who have worked on off-shore detention centers, under the operations of International SOS
and its subsidiary, International Health and Medical Services.

International Health and Medical Services runs the medical services provided on Manus Island.

The medical practitioners who have spoken out on the program are essentially defying the restrictions put on
them under the aforementioned Australian Border Force Bill. Under the Bill, the medical practitioners could
potentially be prosecuted and jailed for revealing the disturbing details and mismanagement of medical staff
and the operations that have been occurring on Manus Island.

The details revealed by the former staff who have either worked directly at the facility or associated with
its operations, are alarming. Equally alarming is the gross mismanagement and sheer ignorance put forth by
Australia's Department of Immigration and Border Force who are outright ignoring the advice and recommendations
of medical staff and healthcare workers, which is resulting in an already dire situation of detainee's health
conditions, getting worse. This very mismanagement and ignorance from Department of Immigration and Border
Force resulted in the death of Iranian detainee Hamid Khazaei.

It was advised from several medical workers on Manus Island that Hamid Khazaei be transferred to a better
equipped medical hospital, without delay. Immigration officials in Australia halted any transfer of Mr. Khazaei
citing that there were issues with his visa. His medical condition continued to deteriorate further and the
Department was again advised that Mr. Khazaei be transferred, but this time to mainland Australia and to a
hospital in the city of Brisbane. This request from medical staff was also initially ignored and delays
continued.

After much delay by Australian Immigration officials, a transfer to Brisbane was eventually approved for Mr.
Khazaei. This decision came at a time when doctors already suspected him to be "brain-dead", as revealed by
medical staff who have spoken out about the details. Their suspicions were proven correct when Mr. Khazaei
arrived at Brisbane's Mater Hospital. His condition was so bad he was kept alive only by life-support machine.
Mr. Khazaei's life-support was switched off several days after his arrival on mainland Australia.

It's important to understand the two different sides to the story. However, Freedom Publishers Union believes
they are directly related. The rules which have been set out in the Border Force legislation are a clear
indication of the policy's failures. By disallowing and restricting visits from journalists and media into the
detention facility on Manus Island, making it illegal to report on operations of the facility and scaling back
all forms of operational transparency allows the detention center to operate in near-secrecy which resembles
something of a military base.

Section 42 of the Act is titled "Secrecy". The term "Entrusted person" essentially means employees, consultants
and contractors. In short, everyone involved in the operations of these torrid facilities. "Protected
information" means A information held by detention centers.

Continued attempts to restrict the exposure of the concerns expressed by whistleblowers by gagging and the
lingering potential of 2-year imprisonment for those who reveal such operational details and information, is not
how democracy should function.

By disallowing and literally shutting down every window of opportunity which sees off-shore detention centers
scrutinized by the wider public, we will almost certainly continue to see more examples of clear mismanagement
and dysfunction at these centers and also in the operational back-end of the Department of Immigration and Border
Force. This is not simply an administration error which has resulted in the death of Mr. Khazaei. It is a direct
result of flawed and failed Border Force legislation and immigration policy which has enabled this to happen.

If the Australian Government or Government appointed contractors are violating the United Nations and Papua New
Guinea human rights laws (or any other Constitutional or civil liberties laws) then there is clear justification
for a legal case against Australia. [As we go to press with this story and following on from the legal decision
from PNG deeming the Manus Island detention center illegal and violating the PNG Constitution through loss of
civil liberties, the PNG Government has now ordered that the center be closed. The PNG Government and Australia
are currently making arrangements to resettle/move current detainees held at the Manus Island facility. No final
decision has yet been made as this is currently developing news.]

One can not question the knowledge and understanding of the direct operations and what occurs on off-shore detention
centers which house asylum seekers and refugees. The Australian Government is well aware of the problems that are
present in off-shore detention facilities, in addition to its clear administrative problems present which are on
display by the Department of Immigration and Border Force being unable to cope with the workload of everyday
operations, let alone deal with serious problems when they do arise. Such is clear with the terrible case and tragic
death of Hamid Khazaei, which if dealt with swiftly and as recommended by medical staff as they are experts in their
field, the fatality of an asylum seeker/refugee who is under the care of Australia could possibly have been
avoided.

What are the real and viable options Australia has in dealing with its asylum seekers and refugees? Well, there are
options of establishing a new facility on mainland Australia which can be operated with much closer supervision and
which should allow for media and journalists to visit the facility, paving the way for much more transparent
operations than what off-shore detention currently offers. Such proposals have been made by some Australian
Politicians and Senators. The concerns continue to grow as more details of human rights violations are exposed.
In-fact, it has become party policy of some small political parties in Australia that the off-shore detention centers
of Nauru and Manus Island be closed immediately, following the establishment of a new facility of the mainland. Such
a solution would also have a realistic added benefit of a more cost effective solution than the current expensive
operations of off-shore detention. Human rights of those seeking asylum and those with who have acquired genuine
refugee status could also be closely scrutinized and to some degree, we would see their civil liberties be upheld.
After all, seeking asylum is not illegal. Violating human rights and stripping people of civil liberties in a
democratic sovereign State is illegal. That is what is being carried out by the Australian Government, its contractors
and its Department of Immigration and Border Force, through the use of the Border Force legislation and allowing it
to all occur in secret whilst gagging those who speak out of this abuse.

February 19, 2016 | Site Blocking
and Censorship Will Not Reduce Piracy

As reported on the torrent news website TorrentFreak, the attacks against Australian internet users has jumped into another
stage.

The next stage of the attack is being led by Australian premium cable subscriber, Foxtel. Additionally, in a separate yet
related legal filing, Village RoadShow have also launched their own legal action.

Combined, the legal action of the two entertainment entities is supposedly in-favor of site-blocking mechanisms through DNS
blocking. Any site blocking implemented would aim to block mainstream file sharing websites and websites that 'supposedly'
promote and enable piracy.

Freedom Publishers Union has always advocated freedom of information flow on the internet, without blocking, without censorship
and without restriction. We do not condone piracy and do not believe a majority of Australian (and International) internet
users are mass-pirates. This majority use file sharing websites for a combination of reasons, including lack of access to
compatible legal material which is free of any type of digital rights management (DRM) and a genuine intent of personal
viewing/listening and fair use.

Detailed in a Report compiled for the Australian Department of Communications, released on June 24, 2015, which focused on online
copyright infringement of Australians aged 12+, key findings revealed that 28% of users who downloaded illegal content in some
form, had also paid for legal content. So there is a positive perspective. There is definitely room for improvement, yet there is
equal room for improvement from entertainment companies offering digital content to Australian internet users which can match or
better the quality that can easily be accessed for free through file sharing websites.

Let's be realistic; Apple has done a fine job for delivering music tracks and albums through its iTunes service. However, if a
user chooses to use the Linux operating system, iTunes is simply not an option for them as the operating system is not supported
by Apple. Movies are much the same. Movie files are normally accessed through some type of portal which requires a user to register
to all kinds of untrustworthy services and way too many sign-up details required. And if a user is patient enough to tolerate all
the associated sign-up rubbish and reach a point where the movie is ready to be delivered to the user digitally via download, it
usually requires them to download and install a proprietary media player distributed by the studio providing the digital download.
Both mainstream options for music and movie entertainment and limited, restricting and highly inflexible. This is why internet
users pirate music and movies. More so in Australia because the access and options are often limited in comparison to that of the
United States.

So let's get to the crux of the entire problem; flexibility. It is what internet users want. Music lovers want to be able to simply
click DOWNLOAD on that MP3/AAC file or album and get exactly what they want within minimal effort and getting a resulting digital
file free from all DRM. And the scenario is exactly the same for movies. Movie buffs simply want to perform the same actions as
above and get a resulting file, again, free from all forms of DRM and in MKV/MP4 format.

Internet users like files in formats which can be migrated, moved and copied to their personal music devices, smartphones and media
players. Only when the music industry and movie studios can emulate the ease-of-access and flexibility that file sharing websites
offer, and on all operating systems and platforms will the legal alternatives offered become equally attractive. So far, both the
music industry and movie studios have failed. In fact, they have failed so badly that they have not even commenced to recognize where
the problem lies. Well, there it is. It's ironic that they spend millions of dollars every year attempting to counteract piracy levels,
when the real solution is so simple and written right in front of their eyes - Ease-of-access, DRM free and flexible file format.

Freedom Publishers Union and our media partner Quality Publishing Works has released many Press Statements, combined with the many
Editorials on the same topic, all in support of freedom of information flow and fair use policy of digital media and access to file
sharing websites. We do believe that file sharing websites and legal media entertainment websites offering the same files for
reasonable cost can live in harmony on the internet.

On March 6, 2015, Freedom Publishers Union along with limited collaboration with Pirate Party Australia, made a 8-page submission to
Communications Alliance Ltd. in response to the Copyright Notice Scheme Draft Industry Code.

In the submission's opening Statement, former Editor-in-Chief of Freedom Publishers Union, Chris Jones, made claim that the Copyright
Notice Scheme was on the right track to becoming a viable code, if Clauses and Provisions were included which enable "fair use". The
terms of "fair use" can not be under-recognized, as they always are. It is not a method of escaping penalty for illegally downloading
content. It is simply something that actually does occur and should be recognized exactly for what it is - fair use of the media
accessed.

Currently, all legal action filed from Foxtel and Village RoadShow, along with the potential for more in the future, are still
outstanding and it will take time to go through all the usual legal channels of process. So nothing will change without prior warning.
File sharing websites are not going to suddenly become inaccessible for Australian internet users.

In conclusion, we must point out the obvious; piracy is real. We have never denied this. But so is the realistic scenario of genuine
innocent internet users who do use file sharing websites for genuine personal entertainment listening and viewing, often on a very
reasonable scale. It's well documented that these types of users also do purchase legal material in addition to testing the waters
with illegally downloaded content. Again, this is why we strongly advocate on fair use policy as it would potentially eliminate time
wasting legal pursuit of these types of users.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support and advocate for the open access and freedom of information flow on the internet,
which also extends to file sharing websites. Finally, as a precaution of concern for internet security and privacy of users, we also
take this opportunity to re-iterate our call for internet users to use Tor Browser where appropriate and where specific blocking and
censorship measures are implemented.

Internet censorship must stop. Freedom of information and data must flow freely without interference or limits and net neutrality
must be upheld.

On December 28, 2015, the free software world lost of one its smartest programmers and software engineers, Ian Murdock. Ian was most
well known for his founding and creation of one of the most respected Linux distributions to date, Debian.

Through Ian's creation of Debian, the Linux operating system has gained a reputation for being one of the most solid, reliable and
versatile Linux operating systems for the server and desktop sectors.

Debian has provided the basis for many Linux based operating systems, including the world's most popular Linux system [at the time
of going to press], Ubuntu.

Debian development continues today through the volunteer efforts of thousands of software developers and engineers. Whilst Linus
Torvalds is often considered the grandfather of Linux, Debian is equally considered the grandfather of Linux based operating systems.

The tireless work that Ian Murdock put into Debian and other projects earned him the respect that he deserved.

In January, 2006 Ian's hard work led him to a role as Chief Technology Officer (CTO) with the Free Standards Group, which eventually
evolved into the Linux Foundation. Ian continued his role as CTO until the following year of March 2007 where he was employed at Sun
Microsystems to lead Project Indiana. When Sun Microsystems merged with software giant Oracle, Ian resigned from the company.

From 2011-2015 Ian was employed by Salesforce Marketing Cloud, until in November 2015 he joined Docker Inc. His role with Docker was
short-lived, when on December 30, 2015, Docker announced his tragic passing.

Whilst specific circumstances surrounding his passing have not been officially released, there are indications that Ian Murdock had
taken his own life. Absolutely tragic and deeply saddening for Ian's family, friends, colleagues and all of the free and open-source
software community.

It's important to remember the legacy that Ian left behind, through his work as a free and open-source software developer and engineer.
More specifically, Ian will always be remembered for the founding and creation of the world's most loved and respected Linux operating
systems, Debian.

May you rest in peace Ian Murdock, you will be sorely missed.

As a sign of our respect to Ian, today we finish our tribute by publishing the "Debian Manifesto" written by Ian Murdock in 1994:

Debian Manifesto

A.1 What is Debian Linux?

Debian Linux is a brand-new kind of Linux distribution. Rather than being developed by one isolated individual or group, as other
distributions of Linux have been developed in the past, Debian is being developed openly in the spirit of Linux and GNU. The primary purpose
of the Debian project is to finally create a distribution that lives up to the Linux name. Debian is being carefully and conscientiously
put together and will be maintained and supported with similar care.

It is also an attempt to create a non-commercial distribution that will be able to effectively compete in the commercial market. It will
eventually be distributed by The Free Software Foundation on CD-ROM, and The Debian Linux Association will offer the distribution on floppy
disk and tape along with printed manuals, technical support and other end-user essentials. All of the above will be available at little more
than cost, and the excess will be put toward further development of free software for all users. Such distribution is essential to the
success of the Linux operating system in the commercial market, and it must be done by organizations in a position to successfully advance
and advocate free software without the pressure of profits or returns.

A.2 Why is Debian being constructed?

Distributions are essential to the future of Linux. Essentially, they eliminate the need for the user to locate, download, compile,
install and integrate a fairly large number of essential tools to assemble a working Linux system. Instead, the burden of system construction
is placed on the distribution creator, whose work can be shared with thousands of other users. Almost all users of Linux will get their first
taste of it through a distribution, and most users will continue to use a distribution for the sake of convenience even after they are
familiar with the operating system. Thus, distributions play a very important role indeed.

Despite their obvious importance, distributions have attracted little attention from developers. There is a simple reason for this: they
are neither easy nor glamorous to construct and require a great deal of ongoing effort from the creator to keep the distribution bug-free and
up-to-date. It is one thing to put together a system from scratch; it is quite another to ensure that the system is easy for others to install,
is installable and usable under a wide variety of hardware configurations, contains software that others will find useful, and is updated when
the components themselves are improved.

Many distributions have started out as fairly good systems, but as time passes attention to maintaining the distribution becomes a secondary
concern. A case-in-point is the Softlanding Linux System (better known as SLS). It is quite possibly the most bug-ridden and badly maintained
Linux distribution available; unfortunately, it is also quite possibly the most popular. It is, without question, the distribution that attracts
the most attention from the many commercial "distributors" of Linux that have surfaced to capitalize on the growing popularity of the operating
system.

This is a bad combination indeed, as most people who obtain Linux from these "distributors" receive a bug-ridden and badly maintained Linux
distribution. As if this wasn't bad enough, these "distributors" have a disturbing tendency to misleadingly advertise non-functional or extremely
unstable "features" of their product. Combine this with the fact that the buyers will, of course, expect the product to live up to its advertisement
and the fact that many may believe it to be a commercial operating system (there is also a tendency not to mention that Linux is free nor that it is
distributed under the GNU General Public License). To top it all off, these "distributors" are actually making enough money from their effort to
justify buying larger advertisements in more magazines; it is the classic example of unacceptable behavior being rewarded by those who simply do not
know any better. Clearly something needs to be done to remedy the situation.

A.3 How will Debian attempt to put an end to these problems?

The Debian design process is open to ensure that the system is of the highest quality and that it reflects the needs of the user community. By
involving others with a wide range of abilities and backgrounds, Debian is able to be developed in a modular fashion. Its components are of high
quality because those with expertise in a certain area are given the opportunity to construct or maintain the individual components of Debian
involving that area. Involving others also ensures that valuable suggestions for improvement can be incorporated into the distribution during its
development; thus, a distribution is created based on the needs and wants of the users rather than the needs and wants of the constructor. It is
very difficult for one individual or small group to anticipate these needs and wants in advance without direct input from others.

Debian Linux will also be distributed on physical media by the Free Software Foundation and the Debian Linux Association. This provides Debian
to users without access to the Internet or FTP and additionally makes products and services such as printed manuals and technical support available
to all users of the system. In this way, Debian may be used by many more individuals and organizations than is otherwise possible, the focus will be
on providing a first-class product and not on profits or returns, and the margin from the products and services provided may be used to improve the
software itself for all users whether they paid to obtain it or not.

The Free Software Foundation plays an extremely important role in the future of Debian. By the simple fact that they will be distributing it, a
message is sent to the world that Linux is not a commercial product and that it never should be, but that this does not mean that Linux will never
be able to compete commercially. For those of you who disagree, I challenge you to rationalize the success of GNU Emacs and GCC, which are not
commercial software but which have had quite an impact on the commercial market regardless of that fact.

The time has come to concentrate on the future of Linux rather than on the destructive goal of enriching oneself at the expense of the entire
Linux community and its future. The development and distribution of Debian may not be the answer to the problems that I have outlined in the
Manifesto, but I hope that it will at least attract enough attention to these problems to allow them to be solved.

Freedom Publishers Union - Public Relations Department

September 30, 2015 | Tribute to the Father of the C Programming Language, Dennis Ritchie

Dennis Ritchie, the man behind the scenes who created the C programming language or as they call him, the Father of the C programming
language. Richie was born on September 9, 1941 in Bronxville, New York. His father Alistair Ritchie, was a switching systems engineer
at Bell Laboratories. Dennis was later moved to Summit, New Jersey with his family. Dennis graduated from Summit High School, then got a
bachelors degree from Harvard University in Physics and Applied Mathematics field in 1963, and a PhD in Mathematics in 1968 from Harvard
University. He later moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dennis was a key developer of the UNIX operating system, and co-author of the book "The C Programming Language". He worked along with
Ken Thompson (A scientist who wrote the original UNIX). Later, he developed a collaboration on the C programming language with Brian
Kernighan and they were known together as K&R (Kernighan & Ritchie). Dennis Ritchie had an important contribution to UNIX which was that
UNIX ported to different machines and platforms. His ideas still live on, at the center of modern operating systems design, in almost all
new programming languages, and in every bit of open systems.

Richie started his career in 1967, as he started to work at the Bell Laboratories - Computing Sciences Research Center. (One of the most
famous centers of digital innovation in the world at that time and the birthplace of the transistor).

Jeong Kim, President of Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs said, "Dennis was well loved by his colleagues at Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, and will be
greatly missed. He was truly an inspiration to all of us, not just for his many accomplishments, but because of who he was as a friend, an
inventor, and a humble and gracious man. We would like to express our deepest sympathies to the Ritchie family, and to all who have been
touched in some way by Dennis.".

At Bell Laboratories, Ritchie worked on the Multics project. Multics was an operating system which could replace the idea of batch
processing with interactivity. (Programs were running one at a time from a cards stack by an operator and the programmer or user themselves
had full control during the writing of a software). There, Dennis met Ken Thompson, who later became one of Ritchie's main collaborators.

Dennis said, "One of the obvious things that went wrong with Multics as a commercial success was just that it was sort of over-engineered
in a sense. There was just too much in it.".

Bell Laboratories stopped working on Multics, Ritchie and Ken decided to not abandon the ideas of interaction and collaboration and they
began to work on a successor, called UNIX. That modern operating system (UNIX) spread within Bell Laboratories and later was announced to the
world in 1973.

Computer hardware design in the 70's had many variations and experimentations which reflected badly on software writers' life as they had
to either spend more time and energy recreating their software for each new platform or limit their programs to run only on one particular
platform.

The original UNIX kernel was written in the Assembly language, but Ritchie and Ken decided that they need a higher level language, to give
them more control over all the data which spanned the operating system.

Richie and Thompson used BCPL (Basic Combined Programming Language) to write UNIX by squeezing it into 8 kilobytes and renamed it "B".

Ritchie responded to that problem by designing a new computer language, called "C" as an upgrade of the B language by adding data types and
new syntax to it. B was an interpreted language that was executed by an intermediate piece of software running over CPU, but C was a compiled
language translated into machine code and then executed directly on the CPU.

Dennis once stated, "UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity.".

C was able to easily and quickly move between different hardware. Software that were written in C language could run with little or even no
modifications on any device that could run C.

C used very few syntax and little instructions, but it was extremely modular and structured. Because of this C was easy to use in different
computers. There were huge blocks of C functions which were already written and programmers could copy the whole code into their own software
without any need to start from scratch, making it easier and faster to implement. Such functions blocks were easily accessible and available in
libraries, so programmers could access them.

Ritchie and Ken rewrote the UNIX in the C language and they could give UNIX the portability option as well as they gave programmers the
chance to learn one operating system, one programming language, and some set of tools. Only one side effect that UNIX later became a natural
place for experiments and inter-networking between various systems.

Dennis declared, "Obviously, the person who had most influence on my career was Ken Thompson.".

In 1978, "The C Programming Language" book was published by Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan. The book covered a brief definition of the
C language and a peerless introduction to different styles and techniques of programming in C. This book still remains an inspiration reference and
practical guide for programmers, today.

By the middle of the 1980's, the C language became one of the most popular programming languages in the world. Because of the functionality and
speed with which C could be easily used to write software and run them, many companies started to use C to develop their own applications.

The C programming language is still being universally used nowadays as the second most popular programming language in the world in application
systems, operating systems and embedded systems development, and its influence is still seen in most modern programming languages. Also UNIX
influences in establishing concepts and principles which are now computing precepts.

"C was already implemented on several quite different machines and operating systems. UNIX was already being distributed on the PDP-11, but the
portability of the whole system was new.", says Dennis.

The last important technical contribution that was made by Dennis Richie to UNIX was the Streams Mechanism which was used for interconnecting
devices, applications and protocols.

UNIX and C's spiritual descendants are hard to count, but they respectively include Linux, Android, Mac OS, iOS, JavaScript, C++ and many more
that are used in internet technology and by a world full of software developers.

Numerous amounts of applications were and still are written in C language and its object oriented successor C++. C was standardized by ANSI and
ISO, that's why it was multi-purpose and becomes in almost every aspect of the computing industry today.

As an example, languages which came later (such as C++ and Java) were derived from the C language, [some] browser's code are written in C. Also,
Microsoft Windows was initially written in C. Even Both of Apple's operating systems (Mac OS and iOS) are based on the UNIX-derived system of
FreeBSD.

There is no doubt that Dennis Ritchie's contributions on the computing industry has significantly altered the core of the history of computing
industry.

Dennis said, "The kind of programming that C provides will probably remain similar absolutely or slowly decline in usage, but relatively,
JavaScript or its variants, or XML, will continue to become more central.".

Ritchie later became the head of Systems Software Research Department at Lucent Technologies, and was striving to make computers work better
and more easily for users, until his retirement in 2007.

Dennis had admitted that his personal life and his professional life were mixed together as he stated in an interview, "I've done a reasonable
amount of traveling, which I enjoyed, but not for too long at a time. I'm a home-body and get fatigued by it fairly soon, but enjoy thinking back on
experiences when I've returned and then often wish I'd arranged a longer stay in the somewhat exotic place.".

Dennis lived alone at his home in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. He was found dead on October 12, 2011. The cause and exact time of his death are
unknown.

He spent several years in frail health following treatment for prostate cancer and heart disease. He died a week after death of Steve Jobs but his
death did not receive as much media coverage as Jobs.

The Fedora 16 Linux Distribution, was released and dedicated to his memory in 2012.

The computer historian, Paul E. Ceruzzi, stated on Dennis Ritchie's death, "Dennis Ritchie was under the radar. His name was not a household name
at all, but if you had a microscope and could look in a computer, you'd see his work everywhere inside.".

On Linux, Dennis stated, "I think the Linux phenomenon is quite delightful, because it draws so strongly on the basis that UNIX provided. Linux
seems to be among the healthiest of the direct UNIX derivatives, though there are also the various BSD systems as well as the more official offerings
from the workstation and mainframe manufacturers.".

The Australian Government has gone out of its way to make a dramatic shift towards ripping the democratic freedoms and
civil liberties from its citizens.

Since the Liberal Government was elected to Parliament in September 2013, under the leadership of Tony Abbott, Freedom
Publishers Union has witnessed too much controversial legislation which directly attacks multiple facets of Australia's
freedom. Intertwined inside all the complex legislation, freedom of expression has been attacked and freedom of the
press has also taken a hit. As has journalism and publishing.

The current Government has been heavily criticized for legislation which literally stampedes on these freedoms, which
Australia has previously enjoyed. Unfortunately, Australia's Liberal Government has not solely had Australian citizens
in its cross-hair. Refugees and asylum seekers have also had a target painted on their backs and their boats, along with
the country's digital society, with recent passing of copyright reform legislation and measures to implement website
blocking and filtering technology - paving the legal path to a censored and filtered internet for Australia.

Australians holding dual-citizenship (also known as dual-nationals) are now in the political spotlight, as the Government
has just introduced measures to enable easy revocation of Australian citizenship and deportation to a country of origin,
through amendments being made to the Citizenship Act 2007. The final details are yet to be finalized.

On almost every occasion, the opposition Labor Party of Australia has effectively failed the Australian public by
providing almost nil opposition or alternative proposal to counteract the controversial and unfair legislation which
attacks Australia's freedom and citizen's rights.

The Labor Party of Australia has simply followed suit, based on misinformation (and often lies) and rhetoric from the
Liberal Party, in an effort to get its suite of counter-terrorism legislation passed through the Australian Parliament
and Senate.

The Border Force Bill 2015 raises concerns in relation to gagging potential whistleblowers. In the legislation, there
is potential 2-year imprisonment for health workers who reveal details and information on conditions of detention
centers, where refugees and asylum seekers are detained, such as Nauru and Manus Island. Both for which have been
criticized internationally and by Australia's own Human Rights Commissioner in a recently released detailed report, for
human rights abuse and treatment of detainees.

Australia's national public television and radio broadcaster, ABC, points out-Section 42 of the Act is titled
"Secrecy". The term "Entrusted person" essentially means employees, consultants and contractors. In short, everyone
involved in the operations of these torrid facilities. "Protected information" means any information held by detention
centers.

The terminology used and for which the Border Force Bill contains, is vast and very wide-spread. This is deliberate
in an effort to ensure no leaks occur from inside Nauru or Manus Island - an attempt at gagging and preventing any
potential whistleblowers.

We have grave concerns for both of the aforementioned bills and their included provisions. Specifically, we have
concerns with the proposed changes for the dual-citizenship legislation. The changes would be made through expansion
of Section 35 of the current Citizenship Act 2007. Under the new laws, Australian citizenship status can be revoked
from Australians holding dual-citizenship and can then be forcefully removed from Australia and deported back to
country of origin.

How is this decided? By one single Government Minister. Yes. There is no judicial oversight or involvement in the
process and the decision will be handed down by the Australian Immigration Minister of the day, currently Peter
Dutton MP.

The process and final decision from the Minister is supposedly based off evidence and information on the individual
and their activities, both home and abroad, as provided and sourced by Australia's intelligence and spy agency,
ASIO.

And it doesn't end there. The Liberal Government has flagged proposals for getting the new laws to apply to
retrospective cases, which raises the concern of what so-called evidence and information the Government is using to
apply the new laws to old cases and how reliable this information can be. How far back does it want to go? As yet,
this much is unclear.

As we have typically seen with all this over-hyped legislation, it all comes presented and shrouded under the
buzz-terms of the day - "terrorism" and "national security". Media outlets have publicly criticized the proposals.
The ABC has deemed the dual-citizenship changes "unconstitutional" and possibly "illegal". Whilst one of Australia's
most prominent advocates for refugees, asylum seekers and human rights, Julian Burnside, has also been critical of
the legislation.

At the time of going to press, the proposals are under closer review of the Parliament Joint Standing Committee on
Intelligence and Security.

Update: On July 1, 2015, The Guardian published an Open Letter written and signed by 41 professionals, ranging
from health workers, medical practitioners, school teachers, youth workers, social services workers and
humanitarian officers.

The Guardian reports, "More than 40 staff who have worked at detention centers on Manus Island, Nauru and across
the Australian mainland have spoken out on the same day that a new offence comes into force that criminalizes the
disclosure of information.".

The letter effectively defies the new law and challenges the Federal Government, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to prosecute the signatories of the letter, so the matter can be resolved in the
public presence in open court proceedings.

October 4, 2014 | Australian Government May Be in Violation of 11 Articles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights

Freedom Publishers Union is publishing our growing concerns that with new amendments and legislation the Australian
Government is currently implementing, it genuinely raises the legitimate question of whether Australia is violating
human rights, based on the United Nations' very own document.

Freedom Publishers Union is not claiming that any specific legislation or section of any legislation does actually
violate any of these rights. We simply note there are specifics in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights document,
which we believe require very careful consideration from the Australian Government.

We also understand that the said document from the United Nations is not a legally binding document and United
Nations countries are not legally bound to abide by the Declaration. But it does provide the basic fundamentals of
civil and human rights within a supposed free and democratic country. Something Australia is quickly shifting away
from.

As the Declaration is not legally binding, it begins to raise the question of whether there is a valid point of
having the Declaration in the first place if countries are to simply outright ignore the civil rights of its citizens
and go ahead and introduce legislation which legally wavers the country responsible for these human and civil rights.

Australia proudly touts itself as being one the eight original countries involved in drafting the original Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Australia also so proudly chants how much of important role it played in the founding of the
United Nations and the UN Charter. If Australia is so proud of its achievements and its involvements in the United
Nations, then it raises further questions of the integrity of the current Australian Government and how it so proudly
and possibly, breaks up to 11 of the Articles in the United Nations - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

SUBMISSIONS

April 15, 2018 | Submission to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties

Freedom Publishers Union would like to present our formal Submission, in response to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for
Trans-Pacific (CPTPP/TPP-11).

Our organization has remained in a consistent position of opposition to this extremely complex and detailed trade deal.

As the CPTPP enters the final stages of administrative approval, and despite our position of continued opposition, we remain realistic
and take the understanding that the agreement has enough support and momentum from the Australian Parliament to be ratified.

The path to approval is very close, but we still wish to outline that we remain very disappointed in the lack of transparency that has
accompanied the entire process for the duration of the negotiation stages, from when the agreement was negotiated in the original TPP format
through to the latest iteration which has been reformed as the CPTPP. The path of negotiation was carried out in absolute secrecy. It is very
disappointing that the negotiations for CPTPP followed the same path of secrecy.

We remain concerned about key issues in the agreement, specifically:

Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)

Environment

Intellectual Property and Copyright

Pharmaceuticals

The focus of advocacy for Freedom Publishers Union will now shrink, and shift to key political decision making points and legislation on
these specific issues.

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

March 11, 2018 | Submission to Digital Platforms Inquiry

Freedom Publishers Union considers the Digital Platforms Inquiry to be of great importance, which will act as an attempt of grabbing
a snapshot of the current climate of Australian media and how it has been affected by the encroachment onto Australia media by numerous
digital media distributors.

We believe that any information technology company that pursues distribution of digital media, news and information over the internet
should be of interest to the Inquiry's goals. Primarily, we believe the Inquiry will naturally focus largely on the operations of Google
and Facebook, simply due to the sheer scale of the company's combined market share, which can not be ignored and probably should be taken
into consideration. However, we warn against making these two companies the sole focus and recommend that all other companies involved in
the distribution of digital media, news and information also be considered.

The Inquiry must focus on the distribution models of the content that is under review as part of this Inquiry. It should not matter
whether the content is created inside the borders of Australia or overseas. Its creation origins are not going to have any overall effect
to the quality of journalism and news accessibility in Australia. It is the actual distribution models that will have the greatest
effect.

Freedom Publishers Union prides on our publishing and pays particular attention to accuracy and fact checked information, which has been
properly researched and processed through our strict editorial procedures. We believe if we can achieve this with a small amount of staff
members which of most are volunteers, combined with absolute minimal costs and resources, then large media companies can achieve the same
if the effort is made to resource them appropriately. If it is deemed that Australian media is failing to deliver quality journalism and
news on digital platforms in accordance to the processes that we outlined, then the questions must be asked as to why it is not happening.
To a large degree, cost savings measures constantly being refined are having a dramatic effect on allowable allocation of resources for
large media companies to achieve this. This should be taken into consideration for this Inquiry.

In the Digital Platforms Inquiry Issues Paper, which has been accessed by Freedom Publishers Union prior to preparation of our Submission,
it outlines the vast resources and platforms of distribution that Google has at the company's disposal. Google can effectively deliver digital
media, news and information through its Search engine, Google News, Play Newsstand and YouTube. These are only the core platforms that Google
can utilize. It must be understood that the company has much more potential than solely these platforms and it must also be taken into
consideration how intertwined Google's services are. The company's extensive advertising network has very far reach and much dominance in the
digital advertising sector.

Following on from the information on Google detailed in the Issues Paper, is profiling information on Facebook. Facebook is at a transition.
The company was once primarily known as a social media company. It is now entering the field of media. Some industry analysts already identify
Facebook as a media company. We identify Facebook as a fully established software company. As Facebook seeks to work out more ways to monetize
its gradual, yet inevitable slide into the media sphere, its influence will also grow. Not too dissimilar to Google, Facebook also has a vast
advertising network which is constantly expanding throughout its portfolio of software services including Facebook, Messenger, Instagram and
WhatsApp. It has a lot of market share and has great potential to take even much more.

In our Submission, we do not wish to focus too much on Google and Facebook. But as smaller information technology companies and startups use
these two giants as Silicon Valley role models, it gives some indication of the areas that smaller and more aggressive companies seeking to prove
themselves will also begin to focus on as they also grow and look for new markets, potentially in digital media distribution.

To make any credible analysis on the quality of the distribution of digital media, news and information in Australia, Freedom Publishers Union
believes that any argument should start the basic question of 'free versus subscription'. Nobody can deny that the word "free" grabs attention.
It is within human nature that when we are offered two choices - free or paid - by our very human nature we will almost every time choose free.
The issue of quality journalism, news and its accessibility is much more complex than just a simple choice of free versus subscription. On news,
consumers must understand the difference between the two distribution models and understand what they sacrifice to get something for free and what
they receive for their money when paying for subscriptions. Currently, public education is not so good and as a country, Australia must do much
better at educating those who consume news, of any differences.

The argument was examined by us a little closer in September 2017 by our (former) Editor-in-Chief, who published a column on Freedom Publishers
Union in which he poses the most obvious question, "why would you pay for news when you can still read it for free.". The opinion piece concludes
that paying for news subscriptions is not only a sign of appreciation for quality journalism and the publication that publishes the piece, but it
also goes a long way to supporting the Australian media industry. News generated by bots and other forms of artificial intelligence are accelerating
the pace of which news can be distributed to consumers. This is having an overall negative effect on the quality of proper journalism through
traditionally respected publications. It is putting great pressure on traditional publishers to follow suit and join the 'publish now and publish
fast' revolution that has engulfed global media. At the very least, paid subscriptions go a long way to restoring the traditional model of journalism,
eases the pressure to some degree and also restores confidence in traditional media agencies by giving assurance that their readers are willing to
pay for quality journalism if it is produced. This is reiterated in the aforementioned opinion piece when it is said that if you "pay for news
through subscriptions services, it not only has benefits for the media agency producing the news you consume", but "retains the quality of the
journalistic efforts".

Google, Facebook and other information technology companies are not really content creators. The news and information delivered by their services
are usually aggregated by the use of computer operated algorithms. These algorithms make it easy for these services to generate news summaries and
headlines which grab the attention of the user. Often, data already held by these companies is also used by the algorithm to determine which news
articles and stories are presented to the consumer and which are disposed as not relevant. Freedom Publishers Union believes this to be unfair as it
does not give the consumer the complete offer of available news articles and stories. Naturally, the particular stories that will be shown will be
based on personality traits of the consumer, which has been determined through the deep and often much too intensive personal data collection. It is
by allowing these companies to collect and store your data and share it with advertisers and trade with data brokers, which makes these services free.
When consumers agree to the terms and conditions upon signing up to these services, they are actually giving the companies permission to raid their
personal information. This is not the sole fault of the consumer and is not a case of simply not reading the terms and conditions. They are usually
very lengthy and written in very complex legal jargon which is not easily understood by the consumer.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that it is outright abuse of consumer habit to take advantage of their natural reaction to just click "Agree" and
carry on with setting up their profile without thinking of the eventual consequences of what the company will do with the consumer's data and how the
tweaking of the company's algorithms is performed to adapt to certain personality traits which results in presenting the consumer with a very limited
set of news stories. It is having an effect on the quality of journalism and accessibility of certain stories which are not being offered the complete
opportunity they deserve to have their creative works distributed to the widest audience possible across the networks of digital media distributors.

The result has been traditional publishers placing pay-walls onto their news websites. There is various models of accessibility in place with
publishers. Some allow a set number of free articles before you are forced to pay for a subscription, while others will not let the reader view anything
without a paid subscription. We believe that these pay-walls are not the best design for protecting quality journalism and retaining accessibility to
as many people as possible. But we also completely understand that due to aggregation services effectively stealing the content from traditional
publishers and integrating them into their own services which are delivered to their consumers for free, is both morally wrong and should be considered
stealing.

To conclude, we return to five key points of matters to be taken into consideration, outlined in the Issues Paper and add our footnotes on each to
summarize our position. Our position should be taken as general in nature and is not focused on any specific digital media distributors:

i. the extent to which platform service providers are exercising market power in commercial dealings with the creators of journalistic content
and advertisers;

Freedom Publishers Union believes primarily due to the shear massive scale and global market share, digital media distributors abuse their power
through dominance of their services without regard to the wider effects on the quality of journalism and accessibility of digital media, news and
information.

ii. the impact of platform service providers on the level of choice and quality of news and journalistic content to consumers;

The practices that are carried out by digital media distributors are not producing appropriate choice of digital media, news and information to the
consumer. By offering targeted content, it is effectively impeding on any consumer choice and is making the choice for them.

iii. the impact of platform service providers on media and advertising markets;

It is clear that the free distribution model is not aimed at producing quality content for consumers. Rather, it is aimed at fast and targeted
distribution which is further aimed at getting the consumer to click on targeted and selective content so the digital media distributor benefits from
advertising revenue that is produced. If Australia were to have a majority subscription based media, then the advertising sector would remain unaffected
by any large degree and consumers would see an increase in the quality of digital media, news and information.

iv. the impact of longer-term trends, including innovation and technological change, on competition in media and advertising markets;

If the current trends are permitted to continue, Freedom Publishers Union fears that consumers will see less choice and more targeted content
distributed. This will undoubtedly have a flow on effect and force more traditional publishers into shutting down operations as their subscription models
will not be allowed to grow at the same rate that free models can. This will unfortunately lead to much less proper journalism and lower quality digital
media, news and information distributed. And consumers will see a dramatic increase in unreliable news and information produced by bots and other forms of
artificial intelligence.

v. the impact of information asymmetry between platform service providers, advertisers and consumers and the effect on competition in media and
advertising markets;

Taking all of the information, opinions and analysis that we have outlined in this Submission into consideration, Freedom Publishers Union remains
certain that the eventual path will lead to less journalism, less quality publications, less revenue to produce it and make news and information unreliable
and riddled with errors and unchecked claims.

Unless serious action is taken and reform is introduced by the Australian Government which can protect traditional media distribution models, which is
effectively protecting the quality of journalism and guarantee their continued operations, Freedom Publishers Union can only conclude that quality
journalism will drop back to just a few small independent publications and digital media distributors, that will remain dedicated to delivering services
using the proven traditional media distribution models.

If this were to be allowed to occur, it would not be good for Australian democracy or the media industry.

Freedom Publishers Union would like to make a formal Submission in response to the Access to telecommunications data in civil
proceedings matter.

We are firmly against any extension of access to data/meta-data collected from the Telecommunications (Interception and
Access) Data Retention regime, to civil proceedings. Freedom Publishers Union is against the regime which legally allowed for
surveillance to be implemented in Australia, on a mass scale in comparison to the operations that were already being carried out
by intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

We do respect that Australia's democratic and Parliamentary process allowed this Bill to pass, and we must respect it. However,
we believe that any extension of access of any information, data and meta-data collected through this program is completely
unjustifed and unnecessary. This is backed by the Advisory Report, carried out by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence
and Security - where it has clearly been defned in the Report that it is not recommended that civil proceedings be allowed access
of the said data.

We echo this recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Freedom Publishers Union would like a better explanation of what any new law will do. We express concern and do not want any
court to be able to do an unnecessary 'NSA - style' data grab for civil proceedings. To our understanding, no reason(s) has (or have)
been outlined by the Attorney General's website for any specifc scenario that could justify any extension of access.

Copyright remains at the heart of our concerns, that any new law(s) that permit increased access would be used to pursue cases
of copyright infringement , which we must point out is not the reason this surveillance Bill was established. There are already
copyright laws that allow for investigation into possible copyright infringement. We believe that current copyright laws are
sufficient and provide enough access to allow for investigations into copyright infringement. Albeit we acknowledge these laws are
very much outdated and advocate that any amendment to these laws should remain separate.

Additionally, and in conclusion, we do want to preserve access to court records as required, to permit appropriate appeals and
legal research. But we specify, this should remain completely separate to permitted access of data/meta-data from the Telecommunications
(Interception and Access) Data Retention regime.

Freedom Publishers Union would like to make a formal Submission in response to the Intellectual Property Arrangements Draft
Report.

We commend the report and its greater detail, as it provides the best source of information related to recommendations for
reform to intellectual property and copyright in Australia.

Freedom Publishers Union has always advocated and supported calls which demonstrate the need for a sensible and realistic
approach to assist the reform of the aforementioned laws and legislation in Australia, whilst upholding current outstanding
international obligations.

We commend the following key recommendations as presented in the Intellectual Property Arrangements Draft Report:

Support for geoblocking circumvention techniques and to not criminalize those who implement such techniques;

Support for copyright reform;

Implementation of fair-use policy.

Geoblocking

We support a free and open internet across the entire world which provides unrestricted flow of information and adheres to
proper net neutrality principles. Geoblocking is a major hurdle which puts restrictions on internet users rights and permissions
to access specific content. Companies and persons who carry out technical operations which go towards implementing geoblocking
mechanisms are failing to uphold the very basic principles of net neutrality and Freedom Publishers Union condemns this behavior
of restricting specific internet users to specific content and deem it unacceptable.

Internet users who aim to and successfully circumvent geoblocking in an effort to simply access legal content which should be
available to them without having to resort to the use of such circumvention techniques, should not be presented as criminals and
should not be punished, in cases where they are accessing and paying for legal content and of which has no financial burden or
effect on the content producers and/or distributors.

Essentially, we would support any recommendations made by the Productivity Commission which would support and legally allow
for use of geoblocking circumvention techniques.

Copyright reform

In its current form, we believe that Australia's (and the entire world's) copyright laws are much too restrictive, are far
out-dated and are a major contributor to high levels of piracy. Consumers have demonstrated their frustrations with out-dated
copyright laws which do not reflect current content and media use in a digitally connected world. When copyright laws were devised,
digital media and the way it is used by consumers today (legally and illegally) was not considered, for obvious reasons.

Therefore, we would support the Productivity Commission's recommendations to have copyright law reformed and the duration of
copyright reduced to a more reasonable time frame. Currently, copyright is having a negative effect to what it is supposed to
control - fair-use of material, content and media covered under copyright law.

Fair-use

Emphasis must be made on fair-use of copyrighted material, content and media. Currently, we can see no fair-use provisions or
clauses which accommodate the behavior and methods of how material, content and media is sourced, used and shared in the 'modern
age'. It's a trait of our very human nature to want to use, try, test and share everything that we access, at a personal level.
Copyright laws put heavy restrictions and burdens on consumers and do not allow for any type of defined fair-use of such content.

Freedom Publishers Union urges the Productivity Commission to place emphasis on recommendations that promote implementation of
fair-use provisions and clauses to be amended into copyright reform. With legally allowable fair-use, we believe that this will ease
the burden off content and media producers who feel that their content usage that is copyrighted is being abused or the copyright
being ignored. In many cases it is not and in-fact, the content and media is being used or shared in a very fair, acceptable and what
we consider 'reasonable' manner which has absolute minimal or no financial impact on producers of copyrighted content.

With all of the above taken into consideration, Freedom Publishers Union believes that the Productivity Commission's key
recommendations which primarily promote reform of intellectual property rights in Australia, whilst maintaining our international
obligations under current (and future) international trade agreements is a great start to achieving overdue reform of the IP sector
and to assist in promoting a positive approach to legislative reform that could potentially be fair for all parties.

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

March 6, 2015 | Communications Alliance - Copyright Notice Scheme

The following Submission is made to Communications Alliance. It was devised in collaboration between Freedom Publishers Union
and Pirate Party Australia. It is an official joint Submission. The Submission is our response to the recent publication titled
"Copyright Notice Scheme".

In our joint Submission, we outline a total of 19 concerns. In addition to outlining our concerns, we additionally suggest our
recommendation of resolve for each concern to the extent of what we would deem reasonable and in the interest of all parties that may be
affected from any eventual implementation of a Copyright Notice Scheme.

1. Initial concern - Actual details are not clear and detailed enough as to what each of the three notices are, informing the Account
Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, preferably at the beginning of the document, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, what
each notice is and what are the incursions for acknowledging and/or ignoring the notice.

2. Initial concern - Actual details are not clear and detailed enough as to what are the incursions for ignoring the third/final
notice informing the Account Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, what are the incursions for all concerned parties,
if the Account Holder ignores this notice.

3. Initial concern - Actual details are not clear and detailed enough as to what are the incursions and resulting action be for Account
Holder ignoring the third/final notice.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, what are the incursions and resulting action from
the ISP and Rights Holder, if the Account Holder ignores this notice.

4. Initial concern - No Clause or Provisions set out in this document, for "fair use", substitute or equivalent.

Recommendation - A Clause and associated Provisions must be added to the document, which outline in specific detail some implementation
of "fair use" policy. Additionally, there needs to be clear details which outline the specifics of what is deemed "fair use". Effectively,
when a "fair use" Clause and associated Provisions are implemented, relevant, sensible steps and guidelines need to be added and strictly
followed, to integrate the Clause and any Provisions into other working and related Clauses and Provisions of this document.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, what details and information of the Account Holder
is deemed "personal details". Stating "Same as Privacy Act" is not sufficient in specifying what is deemed "personal details". It needs to
be stated within a Clause of this document.

6. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.12; How accurate is the method(s) and technological techniques used for IP address detection
of possible copyright breach of the Rights Holder, from the ISP and Account Holder.

Recommendation - There needs to be specific guidelines and procedures outlined within a Clause and Provisions of this document, in which
[a] specific method(s) and technological technique(s) used for IP address detection of possible copyright breach of the Rights Holder, from
the associated ISP and alleged Account Holder. All outlined technological details and specifications presented in the document, must read in
basic, understandable terms and remain as uncomplicated as possible.

7. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.13; The Clause uses the term "must" when referring to ISP issuing a notice upon request of
the Rights Holder. What incursions result when a ISP fails to proceed with issuing a notice to the Account Holder, as requested by the Rights
Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, what are the incursions and resulting action from the
Rights Holder, for an ISP ignoring the request to issue notice to the Account Holder.

9. Initial concern - Will require further review when more information on numbers is provided in the document.

Recommendation - Update document as necessary.

10. Initial concern - Not enough detailed information is provided in the document to describe what a "Preliminary Discovery Application"
is.

Recommendation - Our understanding indicates it is the Rights Holder gaining personal details and information of the Account Holder. If
this is correct, it needs to be ensured this is legally doable and possible without breaching any Clauses or Provisions in the Privacy
Act.

11. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.9.2 (6); Pop-up; How will this technology be implemented.

Recommendation - There needs to be specific guidelines and procedures outlined within a Clause and Provisions of this document, in which
[a] specific method(s) and technological technique(s) used for "pop-up" to alert Account Holder of relevant alleged breach and possibly
ignoring the notice. It needs to be guaranteed, to a 'reasonable' extent, to not be bypassed (unintentionally through the use of ad-blocking
software mechanisms) and remain unacknowledged by the Account Holder.

12. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.9.2; It remains unclear whether an ISP is required to re-attempt a second (or more) time if
one selected contact option fails to the Account Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, if the ISP is required to re-attempt a second (or more)
time if one selected contact option fails to the Account Holder. If repeated attempts are required, it must be specified how many times as a
minimum and to what maximum re-attempts is considered 'reasonable'.

13. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.10; How can a Account Holder obtain a Challenge Notice.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, how and where a Account Holder is to obtain a Challenge
Notice.

14. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.10; How does the Account Holder send the Challenge Notice to the Adjudication Panel.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, how and what method is used for the Account Holder to
send the Challenge Notice to the Adjudication Panel.

15. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.10.6; In the details of this Clause, it is unclear whether the stated "28 days" applies to
the date the Final Notice is sent to the Account Holder or the date the Final Notice is received and officially acknowledged by the Account
Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, whether the stated "28 days" applies to the date the
Final Notice is sent to the Account Holder or the date the Final Notice is received and officially acknowledged by the Account Holder.

16. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.10.13; The term "Privacy Principles", as used in this Clause is too broad and
non-specific.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, what specifically "Privacy Principles" defines and
refer to the official title of the Privacy Act.

17. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.11.1; The period for records keeping at 24 months, as specified in this Clause is too long
and unnecessary.

Recommendation - The period for records keeping should be reduced to a period of a maximum of 12 months.

19. Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.11.2; The term "may destroy", as used in this Clause is not sufficient in terms of
respecting the rights to privacy of the Account Holder.

Recommendation - Amend details outlined in Clause 3.11.2 and replace the term "may destroy" with the effective term of "must destroy".

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - Director of Freedom Publishers Union

and Member of Pirate Party Australia

PRESS STATEMENTS

July 3, 2018 | New Collaborative Arrangement with Quadrant Computing

GC Media Publishing Management is proud to be able to announce that we have entered into a new arrangement which will see our technology
publishing arm, Tecseek Technology, enter into a collaborative arrangement with computer consultancy business, Quadrant Computing.

The new collaborative arrangement will greatly benefit the technological consultation, analysis and review capabilities for Tecseek Technology
and will see much better quality and more accurately detailed articles being published.

Quadrant Computing are experts in their field, have lots of experience in information technology and will share their technical expertise and
their extensive in-house computer resources with Tecseek Technology.

June 17, 2018 | Our Exit from Social Media Platforms

June 16, 2018, our parent company GC Media Publishing Management, was put into a position where serious consideration had to be made, to make
the extremely tough and controversial business decision to disable and initiate deletion procedures of our social media accounts on the
Facebook and Twitter platforms.

It was a tough decision, but after careful thought it was concluded by GC Media Publishing Management that it was the right decision moving
forward, for Freedom Publishers Union and Tecseek Technology, and for the business.

In an era where social media plays such an important role in connecting the lives of billions of people around the world, we find it
disheartening that there is so little interest in fact-based and fact-checked information and publications without bias, by independent media
entities such as those owned by GC Media Publishing Management. It must be made clear that the decision which has been made by GC Media Publishing
Management to leave social media platforms is not the result of discontent with the platforms or their operations. Our discontent is with the ease
of which public opinion and thoughts are persuaded by commercial media through these platform, which in our opinion is generally failed journalism.

GC Media Publishing Management's publications have always and will continue to pride ourselves on publishing quality, properly researched
information which is some of the most accurate on the internet and which has been vetted under some of the most stringent editorial procedures of
any independent media organization. This is demonstrated by our sometimes obvious delay between an event 'unfolding' and the time we actually
release a publication on the event. We focus on fact checking first, then publish when ready. Not a high-frequency 'breaking news' cycle that is
employed by commercial media. We believe it is this very model which has decreased the value and accuracy of many news organizations around the
world and by our commitment to adhere to the procedures GC Media Publishing Management has employed, we prefer the former focus on accuracy of the
facts we present, despite any resulting delay.

Social media was never a huge output stream for the business and the audience we acquired from social media sources was absolute minimal.
We made significant investments in time and resources dedicated to growing our social media presence, but ultimately growth was minimal and
insignificant to our overall growth strategy of the business.

Some of our social media sites are still available and some have been removed immediately. Over the course of the next two weeks they will
all gradually be removed from Facebook and Twitter. Effectively, this will remove all social media presence we previously had.

Our absolute dedication and focus has always been utilizing our website as our primary output source to reach our audience. This will continue
and as we no longer have social media responsibilities to attend to, we can put that extra attention onto the website which will continue to
remain our primary output source of publications under the ownership of GC Media Publications Management. Additionally, we continue our commitment
to delivering our publications without spying, without tracking and without ads.

Allegations have been revealed through multiple publications by The Guardian of Ecuador spying on the activities of Julian Assange,
as he remains detained inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom.

Additional accusations have been made against Assange, claiming that he had compromised the digital security of the Embassy's
communications, by methods of hacking.

Freedom Publishers Union acknowledges the accusations, but without documentative proof of any of these accusations made against Ecuador
or Assange, we are unable to collaborate them and declare there is no change in our position on the matter.

Freedom Publishers Union continues to support Julian Assange and Wikileaks, calling for the US to drop its Grand Jury investigation.

We also continue to call for the UK to stop the ongoing detainment to the Ecuadorian Embassy and allow for free passage to safety for
Assange.

We extend our call to the Ecuadorian Administration and urge them to uphold the protection of Assange and use all its resources to seek
a suitable diplomatic resolution with the UK and the US, which will see eventual freedom provided to Assange.

Additionally, we urge Ecuador to restore all previous communications and internet access that Assange was previously provided and
(re)enable visitation rights to him for personal, work, health and legal purposes, inside the Embassy.

March 15, 2018 | Death of Stephen Hawking

Freedom Publishers Union is sad to learn of the passing of Physicist, Cosmologist and Author, Stephen Hawking.

The world renowned scientist had great respect from the both the science community and general public right
around the world. Mr. Hawking suffered from a crippling motor neurone disease which gradually took hold of his body
and restricted him to a wheelchair. However, his disability never stopped him from continuing his important work as
a scientist and writer. His work ethic was accompanied by a cheeky sense of humor, which helped him earn the
respect that he deserved.

Stephen Hawking was the recipient of many academic awards and his contributions to science is simply
immeasurable.

Freedom Publishers Union pays respect to Stephen Hawking and we send our thoughts and love to his family and all
in the science and academic communities which are undoubtedly moved by this loss.

A man bigger than all of us, and who seemed invincible has gone home to the cosmos.

Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder
about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something
you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don't just give up. --Stephen Hawking

February 22, 2018 | Resignation of Editor-in-Chief

I am both incredibly joyed and incredibly sad to have to announce of my resignation as Editor-in-Chief of Freedom Publishers
Union. My resignation will be effective from February 26, 2018.

My resignation will also extend to my position at Tecseek Technology.

I am sad to have to relinquish my position, but it was all put under careful consideration under the terms of agreement for
our new ownership structure, which sees more parties take effective ownership of Freedom Publishers Union, FPUorg and Tecseek
Technology.

Under the new agreement, I will remain as a staff member, but in a much reduced role and with much less operations influence
and responsibility.

My new role for Freedom Publishers Union will be Head Advisor.

My new roles with FPUorg and Tecseek Technology will be Secretary and Head Advisor, respectively.

The change in my role was essential for the new ownership model to proceed. On a personal note, as I increase my outside
political commitments and ambitions, I have for quite some time felt that to remain in an editorial position of a publishing
website is a direct and indisputable conflict of interest.

It has been a privilege to remain as Editor for such a long time and I have no regrets. I am positive of the changes ahead
for the organization and wish everyone involved with Freedom Publishers Union only the best wishes for the future.

The latest decision to uphold the arrest warrant for the Editor-in-Chief of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, is a carbon copy of last
week's decision which concluded with the same disappointing result.

Mr. Assange will remain detained to the Ecuadorian Embassy for now, until the next step in the long running legal standoff can
be determined.

The latest judgement comes from Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, who believes that the arrest warrant is a proportionate
response to the situation. Ms. Arbuthnot attacked Mr. Assange by claiming that he was restricting his own freedom by remaining in
the embassy and stated that he was free to leave at any time. This attack was delivered to Mr. Assange while completely disregarding
the immediate and direct threat of arrest if he were to leave the embassy. Also, Ms. Arbuthnot stated that she believed any suggestion
that the Swedish authorities would extradite him to the US was unbelievable. The judge believed if this were to occur, it would put a
great amount of strain on international relations between the UK, Sweden and the US.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns Judge Emma Arbuthnot for publicly discrediting any conclusion by the United Nations that the
ongoing arbitrary detention of Julian Assange is illegal.

It is unclear to Freedom Publishers Union whether Mr. Assange's legal team will appeal the latest decision.

Freedom Publishers Union's ongoing support for Julian Assange continues and we call for UK authorities to drop the arrest warrant,
allow a safe passage to freedom for Julian Assange and for the US to drop its unjustified and outstanding Grand Jury investigation
into Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Julian Assange and his legal representatives have again been set back in their legal efforts to see Mr. Assange be able to leave the
Ecuadorian Embassy, without the ongoing threat of unjustified arrest by the UK, which would inevitably see eventual extradition to the
US.

The latest decision has been decided on one point only and the remaining points of Mr. Assange's legal team's arguments are still yet
to proceed and remain undecided.

Freedom Publishers Union continues to support the efforts of Julian Assange and will continue to advocate for his freedom, from illegal
arbitrary detention and unjustified combined pursuit by the UK and US.

February 6, 2018 | Lauri Love Will Not Be Extradited to the United States of America

Freedom Publishers Union is happy to read that the English born hacker, Lauri Love, has been dealt some reprieve from being extradited
to the United States of America.

We can not comment on the computer crimes charges that he has been accused of, however, we do believe that Mr. Love's case is
another public example of a British/US governmental witch hunt against activists and members of the computer hacking community.

Mr. Love still has a legal fight ahead of him. But the charges can be dealt with in relative calm in the United Kingdom, without
immediate threat of US extradition hanging over him and his family. Freedom Publishers Union believes that if he were to be extradited,
there would be no doubt that he would face an unfair trial and be faced with an exhorbitant sentence that does not match the charges.

Freedom Publishers Union has admittedly lapsed in supporting the cause behind Lauri Love. Our resources have been stretched to their
limits at times. But we are proud that he has enjoyed the support of many activists and supporters, all over the world. In particular,
the continued support from the Courage Foundation has been relentless.

January 26, 2018 | CPTPP Still Shrouded in Too Much Secrecy. USA May Re-Enter the Trade Pact

Australia's claims that the new refined Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP), or otherwise
known as TPP-11, trade pact is finalized and ready for signing has now been put up for question after the announcement by US
President, Donald Trump, stating that his country is possibly interested in joining the CPTPP. The refined trade pact reportedly
cuts out the USA from automatic inclusion due to the decision of the Trump Administration to pull his country out of the original
TPP. Freedom Publishers Union understands that the decision was made by the 11 nations which remained committed to keeping the deal
alive, that the USA's inclusion remained an important factor.

We cannot independently confirm any details about the reformed deal, which is being touted as having been renegotiated, primarily
to address the concerns raised by Canada. Initially, it was thought that Canada's reservations expressed and refusal to sign would
ultimately seal the fate of the deal. Many thought that it was the end of the CPTPP. However, it is said that Canada is once again
on board and happy to sign the deal in its current form. But, there is now some concern about any March 2018 signing after Trump has
called for renegotiations. As we go to press, there has been no response from any of the 11 CPTPP nations on the statement made by
Trump, showing US interest.

We remain not confident of any public release as the CPTPP continues to be tweaked, while shrouded in secrecy despite involved
nations consistent claims that there is nothing secret about the negotiations process. Freedom Publishers Union previously made
available the original full text of the TPP on our website. What has changed since this release, is unclear.

Freedom Publishers Union urges the 11 countries involved in the latest negotiation process to agree to further transparency
measures. We call for the latest version of the text be made available for public access by being placed into the public domain.
Only through placing the text in the public domain can the public begin to scrutinize and focus our attention on the parts of the
deal which are unfair and deemed to be not in the best interest of country X and its citizens.

January 22, 2018 | Tragic Passing of Another SecureDrop Developer and Open-Access Advocate, James Dolan

When Executive Director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, Trevor Timm, publicly announced the tragic passing of
James Dolan, shock waves were felt inside the media and publishing industry.

James Dolan was the Co-Creator of the SecureDrop document submission platform, which he developed alongside the late
Aaron Swartz and journalist Kevil Poulsen.

Swartz fell victim to heavy handed legal pressure from the US justice system, which saw him facing the possibility
of spending decades in prison and putting huge financial pressure on himself and his family. The figure is now known to
have run into the millions of dollars. Swartz tragically committed suicide.

Dolan was a former US Marine, who served time in Iraq. Those close to Dolan say he suffered from PTSD as a result of
his time spent in Iraq. It is also reported that his experiences and the constant secrecy around military activities were
a major contributor to his motivation to develop SecureDrop.

So far, there has been no official details released of the circumstances surrounding the passing of James Dolan,
however it is widely accepted that the cause of death was also suicide - a tragic resemblance to the fate which consumed
Aaron Swartz.

Freedom Publishers Union does not implement SecureDrop. However, we absolutely support the system and its purpose 100%.
We believe that it is only through leaks from government, business insiders and whistleblowers who are witness to illegal
or unjust behavior, that the world learns about it and can then begin to apply pressure and take action. SecureDrop allows
a secure and anonymous passage for leaks to occur and Freedom Publishers Union is effectively in support of the
software.

We support the dedication that Freedom of the Press Foundation has given to developing and maintaining SecureDrop. But
it was only through the passion and dedication for open access that James Dolan and his colleagues advocated, that
SecureDrop has got the respect the platform so rightly deserves.

December 22, 2017 | Acquisition of Democratic Pirates Australia

Freedom Publishers Union, led under authority of GC Media Publishing Management, are extremely proud to announce the
acquisition of all web assets of Democratic Pirates Australia.

We have previously worked with the former alternative Pirate Party, operated out of Australia, on various key issues
that both organizations shared common interest.

A formal motion for the full takeover of Democratic Pirates Australia was proposed in an internal Freedom Publishers
Union Memorandum and put to a voluntary vote of all staff members of Freedom Publishers Union. The Director of Freedom
Publishers Union, Chris McGimpsey-Jones, was restricted from the voting process to ensure the entire process was independent
of his involvement and persuasion, based on the grounds of a possible conflict of interest.

Following the commencement of voting, it was quickly confirmed that the formal motion as proposed had majority support
and would be carried in the affirmative.

The acquisition was effectively approved and effective as of December 20, 2017.

The acquisition is a proud moment for us, as the data and website assets that we receive through the acquisition is extremely
rich in political value and information that we can adapt, reform and include into the cache of already existing content on
the Freedom Publishers Union website.

We intend to carefully adapt the information of Democratic Pirates Australia and integrate the most appropriate content into
the website of Freedom Publishers Union. Some information deemed not relevant, will be virtually discarded.

We must stress that this does not change the direction of Freedom Publishers Union. We are still an independent media
organization focused on the very same core issues and stay true to the same values as before. Any political views that we
have will be integrating into our existing Editorial Procedures, and will follow the same principles as we've always had -
publishing fact checked, accurate information.

We take this opportunity to thank our readers and supporters for their continued support as we draw 2017 to a close, with
this positive news.

December 12, 2017 | We Support Wikileaks, Despite Obvious Bias

We refer to recent revelations of Wikileaks corresponding with Donald Trump Jnr. on matters related to the
Clinton/Trump Presidential Election campaign.

It has now become clear that Wikileaks has expressed its bias. To a certain degree, this does change our position
of support towards Wikileaks in which we want to make very clear.

We will continue to support the work of Wikileaks. However, we trust them as a document source. Additionally, we
support the articles presented on Wikileaks that accompany their publications, but now take on a fresh view that it
is presented with a certain amount of bias. A view of bias that we did not carry before.

This brings Wikileaks into line with our acceptance and determination of trust towards other media organizations
that are part of our trusted sources through out strict editorial methods and standards.

We believe Freedom Publishers Union has some of the strictest editorial standards of independent media and we
intend to remain strict, to ensure our focus on accuracy and fact-checked information remains.

We are proud to announce the official appointment of Barrett Brown as the newest member to be appointed to
the Freedom Publishers Union Advisory Board.

We are also proud to make the additional announcement of the appointment of Biplab Das, also joining as a
member of the Advisory Board.

Freedom Publishers Union will use their combined extensive and rich knowledge of the greater importance of
independent media and freedom of information, and integrate it into the already existing collective knowledge
of the Advisory Board.

It has remained relatively dormant since earlier this year when the announcement by US President,
Donald Trump, that he will officially withdraw the United States of America as a signatory from the TPP.

The withdrawal of the US put the future certainty of the agreement in jeopardy. Doubt was immediately
raised as to whether the agreement could proceed without the inclusion of the US, which effectively
brought the tally of 12 nation signatories down to 11.

This week, the trade agreement has made news headlines again. There is renewed calls by the Australian
Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to get negotiations underway that would see the TPP revisited and
reformed into an agreement which could proceed without the inclusion of the US, but with included
provisions that would allow for the possibility of re-inclusion of the US in the future. Which if
re-inclusion were to eventuate, it would most likely occur under a new US Presidency, as Donald Trump
has continued to vow his opposition to the TPP.

We stand by the decision of Donald Trump to withdraw the US, as Freedom Publishers Union oppose the
TPP.

Freedom Publishers Union has previously made our concerns public, highlighting specific elements of
the TPP. Our position remains firm and will remain firm for any reformed trade agreement, dubbed "TPP-11".

Despite our firm opposition to the TPP, as a compromise, we will continue to urge the 11 remaining
signatory nations and their governing political parties to renegotiate the agreement in a completely
open and transparent fashion, allow for free passage of regular updates to media, along with drafts of
chapters that have been amended to be placed in the public domain rather than relying on leaked copies
having to be released through whistleblower platforms.

We conclude by stating that despite our push to have future amended draft chapters released through
both mainstream and independent media channels, we will continue to offer our full support to
whistleblower platforms such as Wikileaks, as their importance for providing source documents in the
media for journalists and reporters is greatly under-appreciated.

August 21, 2017 | Freedom Publishers Union Continues to Support Free and Open
Internet, and Oppose Censorship

Late last week, following on from a series of lengthy legal attacks led by Village Roadshow,
Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal, Disney, 21st Century Fox and Australia's cable subscription
network, Foxtel, the Federal Court of Australia ordered in favor of blocking specific internet
sharing services and torrent index sites that are claimed to be directly or indirectly assisting
in copyright infringement.

The Federal Court has ordered that the site blocking measures must be implemented by affected
internet service providers within two weeks of the court's ruling.

Freedom Publishers Union is concerned of the continuing trend in censorship being implemented
and pushed onto Australian internet users, through these blocking measures which are getting
authorized in the Federal Courts under copyright infringement, in continued legal attacks from the
major production studios who use their market dominance to force the blocking (with intention of
shutdown) of legitimate file sharing sites and their associated networks, which some enable
legitimate and completely legal file sharing services for creative and organic content.

We always advocate for a free and open internet without government interference and with minimal
international regulation, which includes open access without restrictions and without any form of
internet blocking or censorship. Freedom Publishers Union has never bent or moved on our position
to uphold these digital rights for all internet users around the world, including Australia.

We remain firm in our position and always advocate that users facing censorship through website
and/or domain blocking, should consider using Tor Browser as a means of bypassing these relatively
meaningless and ineffective censorship techniques.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to fight for digital rights on the internet, alongside
copyright reform and always advocate against and oppose censorship to the fullest extent
possible.

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply concerned at the latest attacks on press freedom,
specifically aimed at censoring Al Jazeera. This week, the state of Israel announced plans to
force closure of the Al Jazeera office in Jerusalem and also revoke outstanding media credentials
of its journalists in Israel.

The announcement from Israel echoes that of other leading countries in the Middle-East who have
issued condemnation of the Qatar-based media organization. Middle-Eastern states who continue to
attack independent journalism and the free press are constantly making false public claims that Al
Jazeera is supporting terrorism and their related terrorist organizations. It is not. These claims
are false, misleading and are simply aimed to attempt to undermine the editorial independence of
the network and damage its model for revealing the truth and facts about the true events and nature
of these repressive regimes which falsely claim to be democratic. The attacks are a targeted
distraction from the facts of repression.

Al Jazeera strives off the independence of its journalism model and holds a massive amount of
respect in the media industry for its independent and non-bias stance on the issues it reports on.
Freedom Publishers Union absolutely supports the independent journalism model and firmly believes
in a free and open press. Al Jazeera holds our dedicated and absolute support, as does its
journalists.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns the state of Israel for the latest attempt to silence Al
Jazeera and its journalists. While Israel remains a key ally of Western nations, including the
United States of America, the very nature of the forced closure and stripping of media credentials
of journalists puts the repressive actions of the Israeli Government on public display. It's
counter-productive to what Israel claims.

Al Jazeera remains a grave threat to repressive regimes, specifically in the Middle-East where
repressive regimes continue to flourish, through threats to any form of any independent voice. Only
through a free and open press can unjust events and actions be reported and published for the public,
for citizens to make their own determination of whether their respective governments are in fact
operating a democratic system, or continue to suppress freedom of information through their
governing model of power, force and secrecy.

Despite the attacks on the news agency and forced closure of its Israeli-based office, in a
Statement released by Al Jazeera, the agency has vowed to continue to report and detail important
issues that they always have and have said despite the office closure, "Al Jazeera will continue to
cover the events of the occupied Palestinian territories professionally and accurately, according to
the standards set by international agencies, such as the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom)."
Additionally, Al Jazeera has indicated that it will pursue legal action as a result of the
decision.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support the excellent, independent and quality
journalism of Al Jazeera, based on the principles of the free and open press model that we so strongly
aim to serve, support and advocate.

In conclusion, we urge Middle-East states to immediately stop the attacks on the freedom of the
press and if differences of opinion are present, to accept the difference is real whilst commence to
realize the greater importance of free and open journalism which comes from an independent publishing
model.

December 3, 2016 | Release of Barrett Brown

Journalist, Writer and Internet Activist, Barrett Brown, has been released early from
serving his sentence in prison.

Freedom Publishers Union has been in support of Mr. Brown receiving fair treatment
and early release from prison.

We remain confident that he will continue his writing through his work as an
independent journalist and activist.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support his legal cause, as Mr. Brown is
still obligated to pay restitution and other legal fees.

We wish him the best of luck for the future and we are proud that our Organization
was able to support such an incredible talent and independent journalist, by
assisting to keep up the public pressure for early release.

July 28, 2016 | Shutdown of KickAss Torrents (KAT) Website

Freedom Publishers Union is extremely disappointed to learn of the recent
shutdown of the torrent website KickAss Torrents, or more commonly known as KAT.
In addition to the website shutdown, its Founder has also been arrested and is
currently detained.

Our Organization has always advocated and supported services and infrastructure
that allow for the dissemination of information and data in a free and open internet
environment.

We have witnessed continued attacks against torrent indexing website, The Pirate
Bay (TPB). It has been consistently attacked, at the domain level with countless
domain seizures. Although the website has experienced downtime, it continues to
make a full recovery and returns online. Ironically, it is now located and accessible
at its original .org domain. Freedom Publishers Union has supported The Pirate Bay
and called for the constant attacks from authoritative figures, representative bodies
and media industry behemoths, on TPB services and infrastructure to stop.

Our full support extends to KAT. We support the website and the operations from its
owner(s). We should hope that KAT will make an eventual return to the internet.
Whether it be in official form or a new service dedicated to uphold the KAT legacy in
the torrent sphere, is yet unclear. Until we see an official endorsement from an
entity associated with the official (and original) KAT website, we warn torrent users
to be cautious about accessing websites that attempt to replicate the original
website. As we have witnessed by previous TPB shutdown attempts, unfortunately
scams are born from closures of popular torrent websites.

Freedom Publishers Union supports and advocates freedom of internet and data
flow. BitTorrent is a protocol that allows for the freedom of this data to flow, with
minimal interruption. Therefore, we support the BitTorrent protocol, its associated
technologies and all indexing websites, in-full and will continue to do so.

Attacks against websites and persons associated with the core functions of
BitTorrent operations that allow for torrent indexing and access, must stop
immediately.

We do not endorse piracy, rather Freedom Publishers Union supports fair-use
provisions of copyrighted material, along with further copyright reform. We believe
that aggressive pursuit of copyright reform would be much more productive as a
counter-piracy measure. We will continue to seek out measures and consult with
organizations and political entities across the world, to advocate the importance of
a free and open internet and the equally important matter of copyright reform and
fair-use.

June 29, 2016 | Acquisition of Tecseek Technology

GC Media Publishing Management has completed the acquisition of Tecseek Technology. The
successful acquisition will see the website and its entire operations integrated into the business and
publishing services under its new parent owner, GC Media Publishing Management.

Tecseek Technology will remain a separate website and its operations will operate as normal. Going
into the future we will see even closer integration with the website of Freedom Publishers Union
and closer integration with current server technology which is utilized throughout our business.

We are proud and positive for the future of Freedom Publishers Union, as the acquisition of Tecseek
Technology gives Freedom Publishers Union the absolute best opportunity we could possibly have
to extend our reach with technology based publications. This has been a core focus for our business
in 2016 and we openly admit that we have lagged in our efforts and we see this as a great
opportunity to reinvigorate and accelerate our focus on technology publications across the IT sector.

Freedom Publishers Union supports open information sharing through releasing all our content
through the Creative Commons license. This will also be followed on to Tecseek Technology and all
content published through Tecseek Techology will also be released through Creative Commons
licensing.

The acquisition will see former Editor-in-Chief and current Director, Chris McGimpsey-Jones, return to his
former position and be reinstated as Editor-in-Chief of Freedom Publishers Union and all its
integrated publication services. Mel Khamlichi will become the Technical Advisor for all operations.

Furthermore, the acquisition of Tecseek Technology will see a change of the share of ownership to
GC Media Publishing Management. This will have no public operations or publications impact and
will remain solely an administrative task.

January 15, 2016 | Death of David Bowie

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply saddened by the recent passing of Singer, Songwriter and
Musician, David Bowie.

Bowie passed away on January 10, just 2 days after the release of what would be his final album,
Black Star. The album was quickly dubbed to be a farewell gift to his fans and the wider music
world.

He was a unique individual and never seeked rock-star status and many times almost disappearing
from the public eye, fueling speculation that he had quit the business of music. However, all
through his career he continued to release quality music with equally impressive lyrics. Sometimes
controversial and sometimes quirky. Bowie is said to have inspired the rock music of the early 70's
and influenced punk rock with his style of dress, music and stage performances.

No words can truly explain the impressive career of Bowie which spanned over 50 years. David
Bowie will be sorely missed by the music industry and the wider music world.

Freedom Publishers Union pays respect to this special individual who never failed to produce
topshelf music which was very much appreciated by his fans. To some extent, Bowie will never know
how much he was loved and appreciated for his contributions to the music industry.

Freedom Publishers Union commends the efforts made by the Egyptian Government, under
Presidential orders to officially Pardon the Al Jazeera Journalists, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher
Mohamed.

We have continuously campaigned against the unjust detainment of all three Journalists, including
Peter Greste who has not yet been officially Pardoned.

The latest development has restored some degree of confidence in the Egyptian Government and
International relations.

Peter Greste has been released and is now residing back in Australia. His criminal convictions
remain in place. Although Mr. Greste enjoys freedom in his own country, the criminal convictions
that remain in place do however limit his journalistic work as a Foreign Correspondent and limits
the countries that he can now travel to.

Freedom Publishers Union urges the Egyptian President to take the next step, restore much more
confidence in its Government's control over International relations and extend the Presidential
Pardon to Peter Greste, so all crimimal convictions can then be cleared.

With all three men now free from unjust detainment in Egypt, the landmark decision also draws our
campaign to a close.

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply disturbed and concerned by the verdict of the retrial of Al
Jazeera Journalists Peter Greste, Mohammed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed.

Our Organization has been at the forefront of the campaign for freedom of these Journalists and our
support remains with them, on the basis of human rights, press freedom and democracy.

On June 24, 2014, Freedom Publishers Union released a Statement raising the initial concerns
expressed from our own Organization on this matter. This is when our campaign for freedom of the
Al Jazeera Journalists commenced.

On July 12, 2014, Freedom Publishers Union contacted the Egyptian Embassy in Canada and
Australia, pleading for equal justice for all three men and for recognition that their human rights and
fair legal justice had been violated.

Since our initial contact with the Egyptian Embassies, our campaign has been relentless and have
always called for a fair trial based on truthful information, evidence and a legal justice system. To
date, the trial and retrial has been completely flawed, falsified and the justice system and
prosecutors have failed to present truthful evidence of any illegal activity from all three Journalists.

Our concerns remain firm and the announcement of the latest verdict from the retrial is equally
disturbing and flawed as the first attempt at a fair and just legal proceeding.

With the support of all staff members involved at Freedom Publishers Union, we intend to continue
to pursue complete equal freedom for all three Journalists, in honor of press freedom and democracy.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns the decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department
to suppress the Grand Jury files, on the case of the death of Eric Garner.

Eric Garner was killed by a police officer on July 17, 2014, in New York City, by methods of a
banned "choke-hold".

Freedom Publishers Union has backed support for calls to have the Grand Jury files released to the
public, for increased awareness and information purposes for the wider community on the truth of
the details of the case. Instead, we see the files have been suppressed and kept secret.

Freedom Publishers Union supports the New York Civil Liberties Union in their appeal of the
decision and calls to have the documents released to the public.

July 11, 2015 | Condemnation of Government Interference with Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Questions
and Answers (QandA) Program

Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia express our condemnation of the Liberal Party, under the
leadership of the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in its handling of the Coalition's response to the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and its Questions and Answers (QandA) program.

The ABC is funded by the Australian Government and the Australian taxpayers. However, it is an independently
operated entity without Government interference or control over its operations.

Australia is a democratic country with a free and open media ecosystem. Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic
Pirates Australia wish for it to remain free, open, transparent and off-limits from all attempts of bureaucratic
interference.

We will continue to advocate absolute media freedom in Australia and condemn any attempts of any member or party
of Government that attempts to suppress or stamp upon these freedoms.

June 9, 2015 | Global Campaign Against the Death Penalty

Freedom Publishers Union condemns the use of the death penatly in any country, for any crimes
committed.

The April 29 execution of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in Indonesia, demonstrates a
lack of respect for the human rights of the individuals and complete lack of respect for their human
dignity.

It remains true the individuals did commit crimes; however, Freedom Publishers Union firmly
believes the individuals did serve the necessary time imprisoned in detention in Indonesia, to
become reformed citizens.

It can not be disputed our views were echoed in the media arena, both in Australia and on the
International circuit.

Freedom Publishers Union is moving to consider ways to step up our campaign against the use of
the death penalty and will continue to advocate against its use, regardless of country the horrific
practice is undertaken.

March 21, 2015 | Response to Unexpected Passing of Malcolm Fraser

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply saddened by the unexpected passing of former Australian
Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.

Malcolm Fraser was very much respected and a great source of inspiration for many people, during
his time serving as Prime Minister of Australia and for the entirety of his life.

He always provided insightful and intriguing commentary on all current issues and was a regular on
Australian television broadcasting networks, for interview.

On many occasion, Staff Members at Freedom Publishers Union used the commentary of Malcolm
Fraser as a preliminary analysis of our own contributions.

Malcolm Fraser, 1930 - 2015.

February 20, 2015 | Equation Group and its Cyber-Espionage Activities

In a joint Statement, Freedom Publishers Union and Quality
Publishing Works denounce the activities which have been published through information revealed
on the "Equation Group" and its involvements in cyber-espionage.

We are deeply disturbed and were immediately concerned by the technical sophistication of the
finer details of the activities undertaken, as revealed by information security researchers at
Kaspersky Labs.

The technical cyber-espionage activities undertaken by the mysterious group, dubbed "Equation
Group" by Kaspersky Labs, use very sophisticated techniques of which have not been witnessed
before, with effects that have the potential for results that pose alarming concern for how
widespread the actions are and how integrated the activities and the originating entities are
potentially and most-likely connected to Government Agencies and the greater mass-surveillance
landscape.

Freedom Publishers Union and Quality Publishing Works jointly condemn this kind of illegal,
wrongful, unwarranted, immoral behavior and activities of any group involved in
cyber-espionage.

We will continue to analyze any further information and details revealed on this matter and publish
as appropriate.

February 9. 2015 | KickassTorrents and the Potential Threat of More Domain Name Action

The domain name extension used by KickassTorrents website, .so has been seized. The website is
no longer accessible by this domain name extension as it has apparently been banned by means of
domain name system blocking.

The website soon moved to utilize the .to domain extension and is now accessible through using the
.to extension.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns these continued attacks on freedoms of the internet. Torrent
websites are consistently at the forefront of the ongoing threat by movie and music production
studios, in their attempts to limit and shut down file sharing websites and their associated services.

We will always continue to support freedom of the internet and services that continue to provide the
means and technology that promote and provide those very freedoms to any internet connected user
anywhere in the world, regardless of locale and state and country borders.

It's a continuing threat from worldwide authorities and production studios, in their bid to restrict and
have absolute control over media and information flow on the internet. Attacks such as domain
seizures, domain name blocking, website shut downs and confiscation of hardware and other
personal property from the respective operators; Freedom Publishers Union views all of these
events as attacks on freedom of information and internet information flow and will continue to
fight, defend and support those very freedoms when under threat.

January 23, 2015 | Response to Sentencing for Barrett Brown

Journalist, Writer and Internet Activist, Barrett Brown, has been sentenced to 63 months
imprisonment and ordered to pay the amount of $890,000.

There has been worldwide outrage over the conviction and sentence with many well-respected
journalists and media organizations expressing their disappointment in the sentencing.

Freedom Publishers Union echoes the concerns of many others and express our own disappointment
with the result.

We believe the case and entire judicial process has been seriously flawed. Many valid points and
facts have been brought forth by Brown and his Legal Defense, yet outright ignored by the judicial
system. Again, a systematic fail of the United States legal process.

Combined with information that has been twisted and/or concocted by the FBI (as Brown points out
in his own Statement) and falsely presented to the Court, along with information that is just plain
wrong, makes the Barrett Brown case absolutely ridiculous.

What is equally concerning is the fact that the case of Barrett Brown is not limited to this case only,
there are others which compare. There will undoubtedly be more in the future, which we intend to
ridicule where necessary in defense of Journalist' who do their job all too well and get punished by
the highly flawed and pre-determined verdicts that extend from the Unites States of America legal
system.

Freedom Publishers Union is very disappointed with the decision and intends to examine what
avenues of support we can now offer the Free Barrett Brown movement.

We hope that the gifted Journalist and Writer that Barrett Brown is, continues to write from the
walls of the concrete confinements of prison as we will continue to publish future works of Barrett
Brown and Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support his legal defense.

There is undoubtedly much more information to be released about the alleged origins of the recent
"Sony Hack". In the United States, the FBI has consistently pointed the finger at North Korea as being
behind the incident.

The release of the Sony Hack archive and associated detailed information dealt a massive blow to
the planned release of the movie which supposedly prompted the cyber attack on Sony, "The
Interview".

Freedom Publishers Union is concerned the FBI consistently points the finger at North Korea, yet to
date has not publicly released any actual-physical information which gives respect to the claims
made by the FBI and the US Government. The FBI has gone as far as classifying the so-called
evidence it contains; as secret, in which supposedly proves the cyber attack on Sony did originate
from North Korea.

At the time of release of this Statement, North Korea have denied being responsible for the Sony Hack.

Following the Sony Hack archive release from the hacking group who call themselves, Guardians
of Peace (GoP), the world witnessed a complete outage of North Korea internet access. Speculation
quickly mounted that the US Government was behind the country-wide internet outage.

The US have denied being responsible for the N. Korea internet outage.

Freedom Publishers Union is skeptical of both sides and can only describe the entire political
bashing between the two countries which has spilled into the public domain, as ridiculous.

We are concerned that the US Government is seemingly using the Sony Hack as an excuse to
implement further sanctions on North Korea. If sanctions are to be placed on North Korea from any
country, a legitimate reason and political purpose and agenda should be publicly declared and
backed by information that gives cause and merit to the sanctions.

To date, the US Government and the FBI have released nil information which can be backed by
conclusive evidence which proves the origin of the Sony Hack was North Korea.

Cyber-Security Experts, Cyber-Security Analysts, Cyber-Security Researchers, hacking group
Anonymous and even ex-hacker turned FBI informant, Hector Xavier Monsegur (aka. Sabu), have
all publicly declared that there is very little chance North Korea could be behind the Sony Hack due to
the complexity required to carry out the hack and the amount of material which was sourced.

In a recent interview with CNET, Monsegur goes on to describe his own analysis of the Sony Hack,
claiming the amount of material sourced by the hack was gathered in a highly-sophisticated manner
and undoubtedly not stored on one single server within Sony's infrastructure, concluding there was
very little chance a rogue country such as North Korea with very little [known] technical capability
could be the masterminds behind this kind of cyber attack.

Based on the information that Freedom Publishers Union has viewed, we echo the claims made by
Hector Xavier Monsegur, that the hacker(s) would have to have had some pre-knowledge of the
internal server structures of Sony and its technical infrastructure.

As we go to publish with this Statement, technology media organization ZDNet has released an
article on its website with information which displays how easy it could potentially be for anyone or
any country to essentially 'take down' the internet access for North Korea.

Freedom Publishers Union reserves judgment on any country, any group, any persons or entity in
the case of the Sony Hack incident. We make judgment based on clear facts backed by clear and
conclusive evidence which gets presented in the public domain. We can not base judgment to
anyone on any matter based on the rhetoric of the US Government, the FBI and North Korea.

We will continue to follow developments in this ongoing and constantly unfolding story and publish
information when it gets released to the public.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to call on the US Government and the FBI (and potentially
the NSA), to release any conclusive evidence it has in its possession, into the public domain for
public scrutiny and judgment.

January 9, 2015 | Charlie Hebdo Incident, an Attack on Freedom of Expression

The attacks can only be described as horrific and cowardly. Freedom Publishers Union views the
attacks on Charlie Hebdo as a direct attack on the world's open media platforms and freedom of
expression.

What concerns Freedom Publishers Union, is that the story is much more detailed than what has
initially been reported by mainstream media organizations. Independent media organization, The
Intercept, has published information and details of a Statement it received from persons allegedly
officially associated with 'al Qaeda' and claim 'full responsibility' for the attacks in Paris, France.

We feel much more detail is yet to be revealed on the matter. Freedom Publishers Union will
continue to monitor the ongoing investigation into the attacks and publish relevant information as it
comes to light.

In closing, on behalf of all the Staff at Freedom Publishers Union, we express our sincere
condolences to the friends and family of the victims who have been caught up in the violence of the
sensitive political incident.

The living conditions and welfare of Australian Asylum Seekers and Refugees detained on Manus Island and
Nauru has rapidly deteriorated under the control of the Liberal Government and under the guidance of
Australia's [former] Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison MP and [current] Immigration Minister, Peter
Dutton MP.

Freedom Publishers Union has been witness to some alarming information in the last 3-6 months. In recent
weeks, we have viewed information in which demonstrates an absolute injustice and willingness to ignore
the welfare of Asylum Seekers on Manus Island and Nauru.

As recently as November-December 2014, claims of homosexual rape, have leaked to media by an anonymous Asylum
Seeker who is currently detained at Manus Island. The alleged rape victim and detainee has stated they are
reluctant to report the alleged rape offenses to security officers within the detainment facilities for fear of
further abuse, both sexually and physically, including mental torment.

On Nauru, there is constant claims of horrific child abuse, self-harm and suicide attempts, from Asylum
Seekers being detained under torrid living conditions.

Amnesty International has previously visited the detention center at Nauru and officially described the living
conditions as "a human rights catastrophe". Whilst the United Nations has also publicly condemned the
living conditions on both Manus Island and Nauru detention centers, deeming them unacceptable.

Based on information Freedom Publishers Union has witnessed, there appears to be absolute lack of welfare
awareness from Australia's Immigration Ministers, former and current. Equally concerning, is the lack of
concern by the companies that are employed to operate these facilities and manage the security personnel.

The Manus Island detention center is operated by Transfield Services. The Nauru detention center is operated
by SERCO.

The facilities on Manus Island and Nauru are operated in such military-like secrecy, with no information
publicly accessible as to the physical locale of these facilities and detention centers.

Freedom Publishers Union is current exploring avenues of action we can pursue in raising awareness of the
concerns we have towards the violation of the human rights of the Asylum Seekers and Refugees, being
detained on Manus Island and Nauru detention centers.

January 5, 2015 | Peter Greste Released, Colleagues Remain Imprisoned

After more than 400 days, Australian Journalist, Peter Greste has been released from imprisonment
in Egypt.

Freedom Publishers Union is proud to have contributed to the global campaign to have Peter Greste
released from Egyptian imprisonment.

Our contribution consisted of consistent calls for release for all three of the Al Jazeera journalists,
who were imprisoned as a result of flawed and falsified legal proceedings against the journalists.

Additionally, Freedom Publishers Union contacted the Egyptian Embassies in Canada and Australia, to
plead for Presidential Pardon of the three journalists.

Freedom Publishers Union is grateful to the Egyptian Government for allowing the release Peter
Greste to proceed without further interference, as we requested in our correspondence with the
Egyptian Embassies.

The release of Peter Greste is the result of a global media campaign, condemning the imprisonment
of the journalists and calling for their immediate release.

The focus of our campaign at Freedom Publishers Union shifts to a different stage, as we now focus
on calling for the release of the remaining two Al Jazeera Journalists, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher
Mohamed. Their civil and human rights must be upheld and immediate release of the remaining two
men must proceed as quickly as possible.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support and call for the release of Mohamed Fahmy and
Baher Mohamed, as we did for Peter Greste.

Additionally, in coming weeks we will be contacting the Egyptian Embassies again, in an attempt to
[re]state our case that Freedom Publishers Union believes the civil and human rights of these men,
has been violated through misleading and falsified legal proceedings.

January 2, 2015 | The Resurrection of The Pirate Bay and Future

Effective February 1, 2015, The Pirate Bay is back online.

The website has defied recent legal action and emerged once again under the same domain name of
thepiratebay.se

The current site is partially operational, with some services still not yet functional.

The investigation by Swedish authorities continues into the website and its activities. Although no
official Statement has been released by The Pirate Bay's owners and administrators, articles
published in TorrentFreak detail that there is tension among the administrators on a range of issues
related to how the website should now be operated and into the future.

Additional reports go on to suggest that former associates of The Pirate Bay have been so
dissatisfied with the way the website has been reformed and defectors are drawing up plans to
relaunch a new The Pirate Bay website, which could be claimed as being the original and only
official The Pirate Bay.

Freedom Publishers Union can not independently verify these reports from TorrentFreak

Freedom Publishers Union is proud that the website has defied its critics and authorities, in a bid to
exercise the principles of freedom of information sharing.

At current, The Pirate Bay is considered by name the [un]official Godfather of torrent file sharing
eco-system in a modern digital landscape. We believe the hydra behind The Pirate Bay is key to its success
into the future.

The time has come for other websites to adopt The Pirate Bay hydra and contribute in their own
way to the torrent, peer-to-peer, freedom of information and information sharing eco-system that
should and deserves to exist on the internet.

We conclude by stating that we will continue to monitor the ongoing and always unfolding story of
The Pirate Bay legal investigation.

However, we are concerned the website is slowly heading towards disrepute and eventual
mainstream abandonment by wider audience, if it proceeds and continues to flood the website with
pornographic and suggestive advertising banners.

We have previously documented the former Owners and Founders of The Pirate Bay
"thepiratebay.org" have also expressed concerns that the website does not resemble what they set out
to achieve and preach.

How The Pirate Bay website proceeds from here, will ultimately determine its longevity into the
future in its current form.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support The Pirate Bay and its service, as it actively
demonstrates the very principles of freedom of information flow on the internet, without censorship
and without borders.

December 19, 2014 | Response to Probable Shutdown of The Pirate Bay

Since we received the initial word that The Pirate Bay had been raided and sent offline by order of
the Swedish authorities, there has still been no official word in black and white from official
representatives of The Pirate Bay.

Torrent news website Torrentfreak.com did however receive word from a person supposedly
associated with the project, that The Pirate Bay will not be back online for the foreseeable future.
This person went on to state that they hope the BitTorrent community and former TPB users go on
to keep their legacy alive, in any form.

At this stage, it seems unclear whether the website, its owners and which associates are still being
investigated as the Swedish authorities have been very tight-lipped about revealing much detail
related to the investigation. There has also been no official word of the domain names used to
access the website "thepiratebay.org", which redirected to "thepiratebay.se".

One of the original Co-Founders, Peter Sunde, has been outspoken of his former bay's demise, by
stating that he would be pleased if it were to not return to online status. Sunde felt that the current
owners had killed the site's spirit he helped create with the other two Co-Founders, Gottfrid
Svartholm (anakata) and Fredrik Neij.

Peter Sunde's words were very strong and there was no holding back in his Statement published on
his website.

Perhaps Sunde was right. Perhaps now was the time TPB in its current form set sail for the horizon
and let the community of users behind ultimately decide its fate.

It seems that TPB and the BitTorrent user community have responded to keep the TPB legacy alive.
We wish to point, specifically, to the work of Isohunt.to, who have put in a great amount of effort
to launching www.oldpiratebay.org, which leads users to a Isohunt.to powered torrent search
engine which keeps the legacy of The Pirate Bay alive by mimicking the former website's
appearance with a tweaked blue theme.

It looks fantastic and functions very well. Search results are equally fast, if not better than they were
on TPB.

A massive kudos to the group of developers at Isohunt.to who put this site together. If there was any
website that aims to keep TPB legacy alive, www.oldpiratebay.org has succeeded.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that The Pirate Bay was much more than just a torrent search
index website. The symbolism of what TPB stood for is what mattered; freedom of information flow
and freedom to share, without restriction. Unfortunately, law enforcement authorities and
music/movie studios beg to differ and it is now left to the BitTorrent community to decide what gets
remembered and what gets forgotten about The Pirate Bay.

Freedom Publishers Union wanted to do our part to support The Pirate Bay legacy and keep the
spirit of freedom of information flow and file sharing alive.

For now, that is where The Pirate Bay has left its legacy. If anything is rebooted and presented in the
future for The Pirate Bay, it is undoubtedly guaranteed to be positive. Until then, we watch with great
anticipation to see whether The Pirate Bay returns.

The original website might be now offline, but the powerful spirit and symbolism it created a decade ago under
the control of the original founders, is certainly still online and felt.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to monitor the current case that is still in its infancy and
undoubtedly yet to reveal much more detailed information. We will continue to publish information
as it becomes available.

We also warn of torrent users to be mindful of the many scams and websites attempting to cash-in
on The Pirate Bay name and website logo. We can't stress enough that these are not the original
The Pirate Bay website and are actually re-creations, alternatives, mirrors and reboots using the same
name and logo, but are not making this clear to their users. Beware of these kinds of websites and
please use them at your own risk.

December 11, 2014 | Initial Response to Raid and Shutdown of The Pirate Bay

It's now well documented that The Pirate Bay has been shut-down and its datacenter raided by Swedish authorities.

As yet, there is no official comment released by the Swedish authorities, other than they were responding to complaints
against The Pirate Bay website and claims of copyright infringements.

It's simply too early to attempt to predict where this case is heading. Media reports are showing mixed reactions,
claims and predictions on the future of The Pirate Bay.

Some media organizations are reporting that this will be the end of the file sharing website and it may never come back
online.

Whilst, pirate loyalists and those in favor and greatly supporting its return to online status, remain confident that
'something' is definitely happening in the background and continue to believe that it will return very soon.

Over the course of its existence, The Pirate Bay has endured rough conditions, treatment and legal battles on its journey,
both under the leadership of its original three founders and also its current operators, currently unknown to the public
and will most likely remain in the shadows for as long as needed.

Freedom Publishers Union will comment in more detail on the matter at a later date, when we have more information.
But at the moment, the following key points are what we do know:

Late November, popular bittorrent trackers, OpenBittorrent and PublicBT go offline.

At time of publishing, OpenBittorrent remains offline.

PublicBT tracker has since been restored and remains online.

December 9, Torrentfreak.com reports The Pirate Bay is offline.

December 9, Torrentfreak.com confirms The Pirate Bay and its datacenter had been raided by Swedish
authorities.

To date, no official confirmation or Statement has been released by Swedish authorities.

December 9, EZTV and Istole also go offline. Most-likely related to The Pirate Bay case.

Confusion mounts, as TPB mirror and proxy sites remain online, using cached index, prompting users into
believing an official The Pirate Bay resurrection.

December 10, one of the original The Pirate Bay co-founders, Peter Sunde, releases Statement on his Blog
claiming that he 'would be happy if the website stays offline, for good'.

(It's worth noting, Peter Sunde has made it public knowledge that he no longer has any association with The
Pirate Bay.)

December 10, speculation begins to mount that The Pirate Bay may never return to online status.

Freedom Publishers Union will follow the case carefully and release another Statement when we have more official
information about the case.

Until we know and understand more information which comes from reputable and official sources associated or familiar
with TPB operations, we urge torrent users to please avoid using TPB mirror/proxy sites and seek usage of alternative
torrent file services, for the time being.

More to come.

December 8, 2014 | Plea for Leniency for Barrett Brown Sentencing

Journalist, Writer and Internet Activist, Barrett Brown, had his place of residence raided by the FBI back in
March 6, 2012. It was not until September 12, 2012 Brown was arrested.

Brown had experienced several different encounters and harassment from US law enforcement prior to his
indictment and arrest. He is currently detained, until his sentencing date which has been unjustly delayed,
many times.

Freedom Publishers Union has followed the Barrett Brown case from the very beginning, as we have
followed most major cases of this nature. Until now, we have been silent on the case, because only now we
feel there is substantial reasoning for a lenient sentencing against Brown.

Our understanding of the case details tells us that the initial arrest of Brown was based on a scattering of
some false and some often 'misleading' information. The experiences that Brown entailed dealing with law
enforcement borders abuse of power from US authorities.

From evidence that we have read and viewed, the case against Brown is and always has been very weak. We
feel the continued delay of sentencing hearing dates, is an effort by US legal representatives to attempt to
manipulate a weak case and present Prosecutors something more fearsome than the actual finer details
suggest.

Brown continued to be harassed by US law enforcement and at one point during his arrest experience, Brown
has claimed that he was injured and received insufficient medical attention for his claimed injuries.

For a person being detained for alleged crimes such as what Barrett Brown is alleged to be involved in, his
treatment has been unsatisfactory.

Freedom Publishers Union understands that there is a probable possibility of some wrongdoing on Brown's
behalf, but we can not cite any direct consequence against any persons or entity that has come to harm from
some of Brown's previous actions and alleged involvements.

From September 2013 to April 2014, Barrett Brown was placed under a Federal-issued gag order and was
prevented from discussing details about the case, as was any of his legal representative(s).

Barrett was presented with evidence against him and entered a plea-bargain with authorities, primarily
related to his alleged knowing of events surrounding the Stratfor hacking and leaked emails.

March 2014, many of the initial charges that were placed against Brown were dropped. Some still remain,
for which he resides in detainment long-awaiting a sentencing hearing date.

Freedom Publishers Union suspects that the case against Barrett Brown has been very weak from the very
beginning and based on unreliable information and evidence we describe as 'sketchy', at best.

We would like to re-iterate that again, no harm has come to any persons or entity from the alleged charges
against Brown and we are confident he poses no risk to society when he is to be released.

For such minimal charges based on lackluster evidence, Brown has been through much already. Yet the legal
system insists on delaying the sentencing hearing for Brown, which has now been set for December (no
exact date cited) or possibly as late as January, 2015.

Freedom Publishers Union is currently seeking an official date, but as yet have been unable to seek such
information.

The continued delays and setbacks of sentencing hearing dates adds to the confusion of the case against
Barrett Brown.

Authorities involved in the Brown case have displayed absolute lack of respect towards Brown during this
sequence of events. They have even gone as far as to claim that he is not a Journalist or a Writer and
completely ignoring the work and writings of Barrett Brown and where his efforts have been published.

Additionally, Brown has received full payment for his published work by many different publishers. His
professional contributions to journalism and writing can not be disputed and has earned the respect to use the
title, Journalist and Writer.

This must be respected by law enforcement and authoritative figures.

US authorities seem determined to label Barrett Brown as a viscous, violent hacker who is ultimately
responsible for the entire control of the Anonymous hacking movement.

In closing, Freedom Publishers Union does not dispute that Brown may have done something wrong, based
on the official evidence we have read through, in official released legal documents. Specifically, his public
statements, remarks and specific threats to specific individuals released through his YouTube videos, can not
be disputed and these kind of threats to members of the public is unacceptable and inexcusable.

We do however believe that he poses absolutely no risk to society through his previous wrongdoing and
other alleged matters.

We conclude that his previous offset behavior would be related more toward third-party issues in Barrett's
life, rather than a genuine intention to carry out an action of such threats made to specific individuals.

It's well documented that Barrett Brown is a former heroin addict. Brown himself has gone on the record to
declare his history of illicit drug use. This should be taken into account in the event of an eventual
sentencing.

Finally, Freedom Publishers Union is and will continue to plead with Prosecutors, to be lenient with Barrett
Brown and take into consideration the entire chain of events that have led to his arrest and detainment. And
the time he has already spent under detention also needs to be considered when a final sentence is given.

We believe Brown should receive a minimal sentence as deemed appropriate to the actual instances
according to US law and not a pre-determined sentence.

When Barrett Brown is released back into society, we believe if placed under the right conditions, in a
suitable environment and with the right support, he can re-enter society a good citizen.

November 5, 2014 | Arrests and Detainment of The Pirate Bay Co-Founders

We echo our Statement released on November 1, 2014, on topic of verdict and unfair trial of The Pirate Bay
Co-Founder, Gottfrid Svartholm (anakata).

The remaining The Pirate Bay Co-Founders have now been arrested and detained.

Peter Sunde was arrested in Sweden in May 2014. Fredrik Neij has been arrested and is currently detained,
in Asia November 2014.

All three original The Pirate Bay Co-Founders have now been arrested and are currently detained.

The Pirate Bay was developed as a file sharing service to allow its users to share files and information via a
fast peer-to-peer based network. That is what The Pirate Bay continues to do today.

Whether the charges presented against the detainees are presented as such or not, it's clear the arrests,
detainment and sentencing of Gottfrid Svartholm, Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij is an attack on The Pirate
Bay, its users and the worldwide network of file sharers which use the torrent-based protocol to share files of
their choice.

The arrests and detainment of the aforementioned persons is a direct attack on the freedom of internet users
and the free and open choice we have, to share files and information between our friends and fellow internet
users.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns this type of behavior and provocation from the legal systems of the
respective countries involved.

As we release this Statement, news of the most recent arrest of Fredrik Neij is still unfolding. At the time of
publishing, torrent news website TorrentFreak is reporting that Thai media is claiming that "US movie
companies" hired a law firm to search for and locate Neij.

There will be more updates and revelations as the investigations continue.

As the world has witnessed previously (too many times), with The Pirate Bay related court cases and other
legal cases against renowned technologists, there will undoubtedly be a case based around false, misleading
and absolutely inconclusive evidence that in a functioning legal court system, would fail.

Yet we continue to see pre-determined verdicts prior to the case being heard in court, which eventuates in the
final verdict that was clearly determined before the case entered to judicial system phase.

November 1, 2014 | Final Verdict and Unfair Trial in Hacking Case Against anakata

As we go to publish with this Statement, The Pirate Bay Co-Founder, Gottfrid Svartholm
(anakata), has been found guilty of the hacking charges he has faced since 2012. At the time of
publishing, he is yet to be sentenced.

Freedom Publishers Union does not normally comment on public hacking cases such as the anakata
case, but when the evidence is weak as the case against anakata, we feel it necessary to put forth our
view to the public.

Whilst it is true that anakata has been caught up in legal battles in previous years, both related and
unrelated to The Pirate Bay, it's important to understand that this case is stated as unrelated to The
Pirate Bay.

Freedom Publishers Union, does firmly believe that in all previous cases against anakata, evidence
has been what can only be described as weak. The latest hacking charges anakata faces are no
different. Again, we are seeing a case built around weak and inconclusive evidence and the courts
and judicial system has failed.

The anakata hacking case somewhat resembles that of the Bradley Manning case, in a sense that the
prime suspect of the courts are suspects of so-called crimes based off computer crimes charges of a
nature and proceed through the drawn out court procedures, ending with the expected "Guilty"
verdict, in an effort to make a public example out of the suspect(s) and display publicly what the
courts and judicial system can and will do to technologists who test and push the system to its
limits.

In this case, it is anakata.

In previous (recent) cases, it was Manning. And there's been many more examples before them.

So what effect will the latest conviction of anakata have on The Pirate Bay (TPB)? Absolutely none.

TPB has been shut down previously, each and every time administrators have somehow managed to
re-emerge from the depths of the dark and murky waters.

There has been countless attempts to shut the service down, through seizure of server hardware, IP
blocking, domain blocking and domain snatching from countries and domain name providers.

TPB's technology has changed, evolved and adapted and has proven that it has become nigh on
impossible for authorities to take down the service, permanently.

If the judicial system's intent was to use anakata as bait and make an example out of him, with the
side-effect of taking down The Pirate Bay, they have failed at that task too. Almost as much as the
failing of the lawful intentions of the judicial system itself.

It's not file sharers that are suffering;

It's not pirates that are suffering;

It's not The Pirate Bay that is suffering;

In fact, the only person to suffer out of the ordeal, is Gottfrid Svartholm, more well known as
anakata.

A gifted programmer, anakata has also suffered from drug related problems and mental health
issues in the past. All of which seem to have been ignored, along with the fact the evidence against
anakata is ill, inconclusive and flawed.

Freedom Publishers Union does not condone illegal piracy. However, we do believe in and advocate
that systems and services such as The Pirate Bay (and other torrent indexing websites) are provided
so that users have the option and to make the decision for themselves, without laws and government
interference. That's primarily why these systems were born and developed.

It's freedom. It's openness on a global scale. It must be protected.

October 16, 2014 | Use of Manning's Identity Reference in the Media

There is public conversation in the media at current, regarding specific references to US Army
Intelligence whistleblower, Private Manning.

The center of the discussion is based around how to identify Manning and how to address the
identity of Manning and which name to correctly use.

It's a complicated issue and something nobody will find any official reference of a way to properly
address the identity of a person who has been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Freedom Publishers Union needs to address this situation for our own readers and how our own
Organization refers to the identity of Manning, officially.

At a moral level, it is important to understand that Bradley Manning has legally changed her name
to Chelsea Manning. Therefore, when referring to Manning in a generalized context, it is respect to
Chelsea that the media refer to her by her correct and legal name. Additionally, members of the
public and media need to understand Chelsea is the name she wants to be called. Therefore, out of
respect to Chelsea, that is what needs to happen in the media at a broader level than what is
currently happening.

Freedom Publishers Union will refer to Manning according to the following guidelines:

When referring to Manning in a generalized context, we will always refer to her as "Chelsea
Manning", or simply the surname "Manning".

When we are referring the Manning's activities prior to being arrested and convicted on the
alleged charges from the US Military, we will sometimes refer to Manning as "Bradley Manning" or
"Private Manning", dependent on context.

When we are referring the Manning's activities post-conviction and to the current date of the
reference, we will always refer to Manning as "Chelsea Manning".

Freedom Publishers Union firmly believes that Manning deserves recognition of his/her identity
according to the time frame in the context the identity reference is being presented. It's not only
respect for Chelsea Manning herself, but also what Manning was/is officially identifiable as, at the
time frame of the referenced context.

September 11, 2014 | Concerns Over Security and Privacy Breach from Apple

Today, it was announced that Apple customers had received what is being referred to from the
company as, "A Free Gift". If Apple's iCloud customers were to enter their accounts today, it may
have come as a surprise when they find Apple had uploaded a free copy of U2's latest album release
into their account.

From a security and privacy perspective, this is of great concern.

There are a few points we need to examine;

Unsolicited content being mass distributed - It is of concern, being of the very nature that Apple
customers did not ask for the content to be uploaded to their account. Additionally, they were not
given a choice to receive or not receive the content.

Choice - If the content in question is not wanted by the customer, they should be given the option
to remove the content and have it deleted from their account. At the time of publishing, we are not
aware of any users being able to delete the content from their iCloud account.

Forced data retention - iCloud users do have the option to 'Hide' the content so it is not visible.
However, users must understand that simply 'Hiding' content from visibility is not removing the
content the their accounts. When using the 'Hide' option to effectively remove the content from
view, it does not physically remove the content from your iCloud (or any other Apple service)
account.

Privacy - User's privacy is being invaded and ignored. It displays a lack of respect for user's
accounts and their right to privacy. Apple as a company, have a global responsibility to respect the
rights of privacy of its iCloud service and its customers.

Security - Forth-most, it raises more questions than what it answers, on the topic of not only
iCloud account security, but the security of all Apple accounts and services. If Apple is able to
simply upload data to any, all and everyone's accounts at any given time, without the permission of
the account holder; then serious questions need to asked about the overall security of Apple and its
services.

We advise that Apple customers be very careful and aware of what information and data they
upload to iCloud accounts and other Apple services.

Additionally, users need to be aware that this latest move from Apple demonstrates that the
company most-likely has full, unrestricted access to all its user's accounts and related content
associated with their accounts.

Freedom Publishers Union is currently in the process of reviewing the Apple iCloud Terms and
Conditions and additionally, the iCloud Privacy Policy, to see whether there is any breach of users
rights according to the official Apple documentation.

August 25, 2014 | Pirate Party Australia, Membership Announcement

Freedom of information and the flow of information, transparency and democracy have always been
very important to me. Moreso, as we continue to delve deeper into a digital world of information
and internet presence.

Internet publishing plays a very important role in keeping the information that we consume, open
and transparent. Since its founding, Wikileaks has consistently been at the forefront of pushing the
limits of all traditional media organizations in an effort to keep governments open and transparent.

The efforts of Julian Assange and Wikileaks have continued with Edward Snowden, Glenn
Greenwald and the founding of Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Despite all major efforts from the aforementioned people and their respective and associated
organizations, it is a continual uphill battle, due to the higher powers of world governments,
otherwise known as the "Five Eyes" (United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand), ordering, yet denying, the suppression of such information.

This a direct attack on democracy and freedom of speech. Both of which are basic civil and human
rights.

The Australian Government continues to press ahead with intentions to close all forms of
information transparency and censor information in which should be readily available to the public.
Additionally, post-Snowden leaks, the "Five Eyes" nations continue to track, collect and store data on its
citizens from many countries around the world.

I, along with my business partner founded Freedom Publishers Union to not only publish and promote the
use of Linux and free and open-source software, but also mature the Organization into an open publishing
platform of wider information. We are based on and adhere to the very same principles of Wikileaks and Freedom of
the Press Foundation.

Politics doesn't have to be any different. I have been thinking of entering the political arena for
some time. Years actually. But the truth remains that until only 2013, there has been no valid
established political parties in which stand up for all of the issues that I have outlined above.

Today, I announce I have become a member of Pirate Party Australia.

The first Pirate Party was founded in Sweden, back in 2006. Pirate Party Australia was formally
registered as an Australian political party on January 17, 2013. Key focuses of attention is given to
many areas;

Freedom of information and culture

Civil and digital liberties

Privacy and anonymity

Government transparency

Participatory democracy

In addition to the above key elements of attention for the party, there is a strong focus of bringing to
the attention of the Australian Government much outdated copyright laws. Which let's be honest,
were not created for and do not cater for the era of digital information and media that we now digest
at a rapid rate.

Through my involvements and membership with Pirate Party Australia, I hope to build on the
efforts that the party performs and contribute to the platform and policies that it practices.

In closing, I must stress that Freedom Publishers Union has no affiliation with Pirate Party Australia
or any other political party nor will it be used to publish or promote my political views and motives
respective to Pirate Party Australia and involvements within the party.

The entities are separate, as is my role as Editor-in-Chief of Freedom Publishers Union and my role
as a member of Pirate Party Australia.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones

August 20, 2014 | Julian Assange's "Leaving soon" Announcement

Wikileaks Founder, Julian Assange's recent announcement that he would be leaving the Ecuadorian
Embassy in London, "soon", is as cryptic as the man himself.

We know as much as everyone else. We would safely say that Julian obviously knows more than the
media and the truth behind his declaration to be leaving soon, is yet not known by a wider audience.

We certainly hope Julian Assange is released soon, as the man has been locked into the Embassy for
over 2 years, without charge of any crime(s). That's not counting the time he has spent in house arrest
prior to him entering the Embassy, for the purpose of political asylum.

Julian Assange's life has literally been a media circus. Equal to the circus of allegations and
investigations (and the denial of investigations) into Assange and his freedom publishing
organization, Wikileaks.

It's not only a war by ruling powers on freedom of publishing but also on human rights. The Julian
Assange case in point, is a clear example of exploitation of all human rights by the United States of
America and United Kingdom. It's unacceptable.

Freedom Publishers Union was founded on the basis and principles of freedom to publish any
material related to free and open-source software. The same principles apply for the actual process
of publishing itself. What we publish is our choice and we have the legal right to do so, providing
we can ensure that the material we publish is backed up by facts and truth. As Wikileaks' published
material is and has been proven to be.

Wikileaks and Julian Assange's efforts and advocacy for freedom of publishing is strong, unique
and of inspiration to many publishing organizations, including our own.

We operate our publishing methods and standards based on what Wikileaks, Julian Assange,
Edward Snowden, their associates and media partners advocate. It's what we have done since we
commenced publishing and what we plan to keep doing, long into the future.

July 25, 2014 | Official launch of FPUorg

At Freedom Publishers Union, we are passionate about being as generous to the world as we can,
with what limited funds we have available at our disposal.

There are many Charities and Non-Profit Organizations, everywhere around the world in which rely
on and require a constant flow of funds, sourced from donations from business and corporate
entities. We contribute to some of these Charities and try to make even a small difference.

FPUorg has been founded to separate our charitable operations, so that Freedom Publishers Union
can focus on the publishing side of the business and FPUorg can focus on where our donations and
funds get allocated.

FPUorg is operated by Freedom Publishers Union.

The domain name is registered for [Removed as dedicated domain no longer active]. Both entities of Freedom Publishers Union and
FPUorg operate in co-operation with each other but are treated as completely separate organizations.

Al Jazeera journalists, Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed have been arrested and
sentenced, by the Egyptian Judicial System.

Peter and Mohamed received 7 years imprisonment. Baher received 10 years imprisonment.

The sentencing decision has been condemned by Amnesty International, the Australian Government
and the US Government.

The recent events of the Al Jazeera journalists can only be described as unlawful (by International
Standards), unfair, disturbing and a declaration of war against freedom of journalism and
publishing, by Egypt.

At Freedom Publishers Union, we are not journalists. However, we are involved in internet
publishing and media operations. Whatever direct field of work a person, persons and their
associated organizations are involved in, whether it be journalism, news, and/or media publishing in
any form; any declaration, statement or threat directly or indirectly related to the freedom of the
press, is deemed offensive. We believe, rightfully so.

We must take a stand on such behavior and it can not be accepted by the broader publishing media
industry.

Peter Greste and his fellow Al Jazeera employees were simply doing their jobs and taking on their
responsibilities as journalists. For this, they should not be punished by a forceful and unlawful
Government of Egypt.

Freedom Publishers Union operates on a freedom based principle, as do Al Jazeera and most other
forms of world media organizations. This must be protected at all costs and enhanced where possible.

Our Organization can not and will not sit back and support such decision by Egypt and we will play
our part in spreading the message across the industry, with the tools that we have at our disposal;
that this behavior of Governments seeking to quash freedom of information and publishing will not
be tolerated nor supported in any way, by us or any other respected media organization.

Recently passed as legislation by the UK Parliament, the IP Bill (amongst other things) requires UK internet service
providers (ISP) to retain a log of all the websites and apps that your computer or mobile phone connects to. This data can then
be viewed and accessed by the Police, Department of Health and any other Government agencies, such as the UK intelligence
agency GCHQ. Equally, once stored it will be a magnet for hackers and some of the data will, at some point, be hacked into
by a third-party and released publicly.

Why is that a problem for me?

The list of every website that you visit is hugely personal information. Just think about those that you visited over the
last week. It would almost certainly reveal who you bank with, where you get your main source of news, your political
affiliation, which social media networks you use and how often, any health issues you might currently be concerned about, what
schools your children attend, where you are thinking of going on holiday or what presents you are looking at for your loved
one(s). For even the most innocent person, it is information that could be embarrassing if your work colleagues knew about it,
but could be really valuable for anyone wanting to steal your identity.

It is even more of a potential problem for lawyers protecting client confidentiality to ensure fair justice, for
journalists protecting sources and the knowledge of stories that they are currently investigating and researching, to
minorities who are being, or who could be targeted and harassed by others.

So what can I do about it?

As far as the IP Bill is concerned, to reduce the ability of your ISP to log the websites which you visit you can use Tor
Browser. When using Tor, the ISP will see that you are connecting to Tor but won't see which websites you are visiting on the
encrypted network. It provides the best consumer-level anonymity by routing the data through a number of different Tor connected
servers, known as relays, rather than by connecting directly to the website you're visiting through your ISP as you normally
would.

Can I download and use Tor Browser today?

You can download Tor Browser for Windows, Mac and Linux at www.torproject.org

For Android devices, use Orbot. This can be installed from the Google Play Store.

But hang on, I thought that website connections were secure? And what's that padlock thing and why doesn't that
help?

The difference is between hiding the identity of the website to which you are connected, and hiding (encrypting) the
information that you are exchanging with that website. In simple terms, it is the difference between the ISP logging that you
are connected to your bank's website, and which bank that is, compared to someone knowing what information you exchange with
that site (eg. Your account number and password).

HTTPS (where your browser shows a padlock symbol in the corner) is where the data that you exchange with that site is
encrypted between the two sites (so your ISP or anyone else can't read/see the specific data). Whilst this level of security
is obviously important for online banking, making credit card payments etc., we believe that most (if not all) websites should
be encrypted so that people don't know if you are reading the sports news, finding out the latest stock market movements, or
looking at obscure news from a repressive regime somewhere in the world that you are about to travel to. This is your privacy,
therefore should remain private.

Can I install HTTPS Everywhere?

In order to force HTTPS where possible, you can download the HTTPS Everywhere Extension for your chosen web browser. Most
popular web browsers are supported. (eg. Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Android). The Extension can be installed at
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Stop for a minute! Google and Microsoft are tracking my searches. What do I do?

Traditional internet search engines such as Google and Bing utilize all the data they gather about you in order to present
you with the most relevant results and advertising. This data will be a combination of your searches on Google, Calendar items,
YouTube viewing habits and even the contents of your e-mail (Gmail, Outlook.com). This means that Google and Microsoft have
vast amounts of data on you and can utilize that data to optimize their business model.

What are the secure search engines that respect my privacy?

In order to avoid search engine tracking, we recommend switching your search engine to DuckDuckGo or StartPage.com as they
do not track your search habits and do not collect personal data to present your search results.

Visit www.duckduckgo.com to search using DuckDuckGo

Visit www.startpage.com to search using StartPage.com

Are there any more ways to improve my online security?

Secure Messaging is a tough one. There are secure messaging providers out there such as WhatsApp, Signal, Wickr and Telegram,
but unless the people you chat with also switch to the same provider, you're not going to be gaining any advantage. If you can't
convince the people you communicate with to make the switch to secure and encrypted messaging services, simply refuse to share
sensitive information over insecure messaging services. You would be surprised at the amount of people who still carelessly drop
their bank account information over unencrypted and insecure messaging networks.

What about Facebook Messenger?

Facebook has been at the receiving end of criticism of the lack of security for the company's Messenger program. Thankfully,
Facebook listened to the criticism and implemented device end-to-end encryption as an option for its Facebook Messenger app. If
you want maximum protection for your messaging on the social network, ensure you use the Secret Conversation option, as it
enables end-to-end encryption which will ensure that your message can not be read by Governments and intelligence services.

What about Twitter and Google?

If you're serious about secure messaging, then please avoid using Twitter direct messaging as there is no option of encryption
and access by Governments and intelligence agencies would be relatively easy to gain, if required. Google has a myriad of services
which allow for communication. If you insist on using Google for your messaging service, then consider installing the recently
released app, Google Allo. It has an option for encryption and will give you the best security for messaging on any of Google's
networks and communication services.

What aout secure web-based Email?

Google and Microsoft both offer great webmail services. However, due to the popularity and company status within Silicon Valley,
they are also targets for mass-surveillance and dragnet data gathering. As we have learned from previous intelligence disclosures,
Google and Microsoft are not very secure and encryption is sub-standard. Yahoo is worse and we recommend avoiding use of Yahoo for
email if you want any serious security.

There are more secure options for web-based email which are also completely free to use and secure your email by implementing
encryption as their standard service. We recommend taking a look at Tutanota.com or Hushmail.com

What about device encryption? How do I secure data on my computer?

On desktop computing, you can choose to encrypt anything you can compress. Keeping sensitive information in a compressed file
is a quick solution but often when setting up your hard disk you have the option to encrypt the drive, depending on your operating
system. Mobile devices are similar - you can choose to encrypt the contents of your SD card and/or internal memory of the device.
Take some time to get to know your system and learn the benefits of encrypting your smartphone or other portable device.

What are my options for software encryption?

Device encryption is important. Equally as important is software encryption. For small, yet very important and private data that
you want to secure and protect, consider using a software method for container encryption. Using software encryption services such
as Veracrypt and CipherShed (both are forks of the now defunct TrueCrypt (the software used by Edward Snowden for The NSA Leaks))
enable users to have absolute control over the level of security for their encrypted containers for their data. You can protect
data by a simple password method, an encryption key file or a combination of both for maximum security.

Let's not complicate matters by explaining the ins and outs of encryption. It will suffice to say as long as you encrypt, it's
exceptionally unlikely someone will crack it, including the FBI, CIA, NSA et al. Instead, the most likely way someone will get
through your encryption is with a key logger installed on your system - so take a look at a few points we advise below which aim
to illustrate good basic security practices:

Do not open attachments from unfamiliar, unknown or unexpected e-mail addresses;

Do not share your location with websites;

Avoid linking social media accounts to third-party websites or apps;

Lock down your privacy settings on social media so you aren't openly posting your location;

Keep your GPS location turned off when you're not using it;

Use encryption option(s) where possible in software;

Opt for open-source software, unless no other option is available;

Where applicable, keep anti-virus and other security software updated and active.

Glossary

IP Bill: Investigatory Powers Bill. Also known as the "Snoopers Charter". The bill has now been passed by both Houses of the
UK Parliament and puts it onto a firm and legal path to guaranteeing all the surveillance and hacking powers that the Government
wants, it can legitimately and legally perform.

Tor [Browser]: The Onion Router. Accessed by using Tor Browser. A way of connecting to the internet which 'hides' or enables a
certain amount of 'anonymity', by encrypting the details of the websites that you are accessing.

HTTPS: HTTP Secure (HTTP is Hyper-text Transfer Protocol) - A standard method and protocol of which websites send information
and data in an encrypted (secure) manner.

July 3, 2016 | BEREC Draft Guidelines for Net Neutrality in the European Union (EU)

To Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC);

Democratic Pirates Australia advocates and supports net neutrality in its simplest form and implementation.

Following advice from Free Software Foundation, we support the Draft Guidelines for Net Neutrality in the European
Union (EU).

As outlined by FSF, we are also concerned of the provisions that surround "zero-rating" service. In summary, this is
where a particular service is offered to the end-user by an ISP or other service provider on the basis that the specific
set-out service does not count towards data usage for the end-user. It is common commercial practise that once the
limit has been reached, the service delivery is deliberately manipulated.

We support zero-rating delivery, however once the limits that have been put in place have been reached by the enduser,
we do not support service providers slowing down or modifying the connection of the service delivery, in any form. Doing
so is directly in conflict with net neutrality provisions and require immediate attention, shall the Draft
Guidelines be adopted.

We prefer this problem be addressed by increased limits to prevent these limits being reached so quickly. This has the
potential to also be accompanied by a fee increase or optional fee due, once the data has been reached. This would be
in favor of any form of connection manipulation which affects net neutrality standards. However, potential adoption of
these measures must not be deliberately abused by service providers in an effort to seek quick profits at the expense
of the end-user.

Democratic Pirates Australia urges BEREC to consider all concerns raised through all public Submissions and ensure
that those concerns are addressed and the final Guidelines effectively modified to reflect net neutrality in its truest
form and intention in the European Union.

My name is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and I write to you as President of Democratic Pirates Australia. I have corresponded with your organization
before on previous matters, as a representative of the publishing organization Freedom Publishers Union.

Democratic Pirates Australia is a small political party movement based on Pirate Party principles. Last week, we released a Press Statement
expressing our concerns over the revised Social Media Guidelines for Civil Servants, in which we describe as "draconian" and "overzealous".

We believe many elements of the guidelines go beyond their scope of purpose and call for Civil Liberties Australia to speak out on these
unnecessary and unjustified guidelines which as described in our Statement, "censor communication and impede on our civil liberties and
right to freedom of expression".

We would be more than happy to discuss the matter further if you have any questions for us. You can contact our press contact on the following
email address press@democraticpirates.com

Thank you for your time and we look forward to your reply. Have a great day.

Good afternoon. I am the Party President of a small developing political party movement called Democratic Pirates Australia. We are based on
the principles of the global Pirate Party movement.

As President of our Party, I wanted to personally write to you and thank you for taking the time to introduce a new Federal Australian Bill
of Rights legislation into the Parliament.

Our great country is in dire need of such legislation and its introduction is very much overdue. Our Party Policy for a Bill of Rights is
currently under review and being re-developed. We originally advocated to have it amended into the Australian Constitution. But upon closer
analysis, we came to the conclusion that this path of implementation for any such Bill of Rights would be expensive, complex and just not viable.
Your proposal is extremely consistent with that of our own Party view and is equally consistent of the direction we intend to take our revised
Policy once our internal review is complete and the Policy re-developed.

It makes me extremely happy that you have paid so much attention to this frankly, missing, piece oflegislation for Australia. And it's great
to see such a respected member of the Australian Parliament standing up for civil liberties and human rights protections of all Australians.

We are currently reviewing your proposed legislative bill in full and will comment further in coming weeks.

On behalf of Democratic Pirates Australia, I commend you for the proposal and the equally impressive speech in the chamber to back the
legislation's introduction.

You have 100% my personal support and that of our Party's support and we intend to support it through our own public avenues of communication
we have at our disposal. We seriously hope this bill fosters the support and traction needed to progress through the Parliament and see eventual
enactment.

Democratic Pirates Australia would formally like to advise PPI that we no longer seek membership.

As a result of our Pirate Party no longer seeking membership, we formally withdraw all and any outstanding documentation which is
currently before PPI.

Our Pirate Party goals for a more open and transparent world have diverged from that of PPI. Therefore we have decided to take this
opportunity to cease immediate collaboration opportunities with PPI, in order to better pursue our own growing Pirate Party agenda.

We expect and look forward to working with PPI in the future, as both our organizations grow.

Primarily, we represent Australians of a new generation in this new and very open technological world, holding the Pirate Party
Principles true to our core values and beliefs. We are increasingly focusing on international pirate politics and as we grow it will
become a stronger focus for our Party in the near future.

We are open to collaborative and constructive discussion in the future with PPI, when we see an opportunity that our core interests
are following the same path.

Thank you for your time and please feel free to contact us anytime through our Press Contact.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - President

CHAIRMAN STATEMENTS

May 25, 2017 | Power of Government, Policies and Overreach, a Reflection of Us

We, the people of the first world, have finally reached the end of our modern flirtation with democracy. In countries ranging from the
UK and the USA, to Australia and Asia, citizens are requesting that their governments do more to protect them from the harms of free
speech.

The UK Conservative Party published their Manifesto last week, which contained a proposal to rescind the right to freedom of speech in
virtually every public and private context. In practice, this new legislation would remove from public access any and all material that the
State deems to be inappropriate, hateful or morally questionable. The thoroughness of this proposal would result in a English society
fettered by the same type of rules that China, Turkey and Iran impose upon their citizens.

Yet no one - other than a few libertarians and journalists - are protesting this proposal. Indeed, reading the text of this blueprint
for public discourse, the restrictions are couched in words about safety, children, anti-terrorism, and preventing crime. Cut off the
ability for terrorists and criminals to communicate and recruit from their communities, eliminate once and for all the threat of child
molestation and cripple criminal gangs before they can even imagine a crime; all this sounds worthy and worthwhile.

Maybe, for the majority of citizens, this is what they want from their government. To feel safer at home, in their neighborhood and on
the internet. And maybe a majority of the citizens have thought through this legislation and have decided that, in the long run, the loss
of some freedoms now will make life better further on.

The Conservatives are certainly absolutely sincere about their belief in the benefit of their Manifesto. These aren't profiteering
businesses colluding on price fixing, or sociopaths that awaken and say "I'm going to go out and hurt 50 people today". These are people
who have given up part of most of their lives to try and provide for the thousands of souls that they represent. This is not an easy or
comfortable (or lucrative) job to hold. Yet it is crucial to have the best of the best serving, that the best courses of action are mapped
for the rest of the country.

The Manifesto is not some power-grab by greedy politicians driven by commercial bribes. This document truly reflects the will of - if
not a majority, then the largest plurality - the citizens of the UK. Brexit was a warning: Britons are fed-up with all the bad news about
job losses, terrorists, crime and poverty. The belief is that making it harder for rabble-rousers to incite anti-social behavior is a benefit
that outweighs those of the freedom of speech that the UK takes for granted.And, maybe, this time it will actually work. But history has
taught us that inviting the government to assume power to regulate our speech and ultimately communicating our thoughts to others is simply
inviting a 'real' sociopath to lead the government into a dictatorship, or worse.

Yet, when you look at what happens when this does occur, many - if not most - citizens don't really notice any change. Sure they get
lectured on saying something that offends, or act overly lewd toward other persons and may even pay fines. But as long as the stories of
terrorism and bullying and fights disappear from the news, the citizens will be content with their lot in life.

The question we must ask ourselves: Are these people actually wrong about trading freedoms - especially the freedom of speech - for a
more secure society? Has unbridled dissemination of ideas gotten to a point where ideas are doing more harm than good? Have we simply
outgrown democracy and freedom as our forefathers understood it?

It's easy to point fingers at government overreach and condemn the legislators for bringing these measure to become law. But these
people are elected by us, and therefore are doing what we ask them. Sometimes it doesn't seem that way on a personal level, but by and
large this is the case.

So the finger of blame - or approbation - needs to be pointed not at Theresa May or Donald Trump. It needs to be pointed in the mirror,
at us. And we need to honestly answer to ourselves: Is this what I really want for my future? That is the way we're supposed to govern in
a democracy. Let's get to it.

I regret to inform our supporters and followers that effective immediately, I resign my position as President of Democratic Pirates
Australia.

As the original Party Founder and President, I remain immensely proud of what we have achieved as a developing political party and hope
some day operations can continue under new leadership, a complete restructure and under the operations of a new Party Constitution.

To take immediate effect, all operations will cease and be placed in caretaker mode until further notice.

Thank you everyone for your support. Keep up the hard work and keep fighting for digital rights, privacy and copyright reform!

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - Founder and Former President

December 7, 2017 | Marriage Equality Now Reality in Australia

What a historic day for Australia, as the Federal Parliament passes the Same Sex Marriage legislation in both Houses.

It been an ugly path with some very negative public campaigning by many different lobby groups, political parties and individuals.
However, this has been offset by overwhelming community support which saw a huge public majority declare their support for Marriage
Equality.

Democratic Pirates Australia led a #VoteYES campaign. Today, as we witnessed the legislation pass through the House of Representatives,
we stand proud of our own campaign and firmly believe that we backed the right side - the side of Marriage Equality for all couples.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a monolithic trade agreement, which includes a total of 12 nation signatories - in its
original form.

Since the announcement of the withdrawal of the USA from the agreement, made by President Trump early 2017, the 11 remaining signatories
have reconfirmed their commitment to the TPP, which is being unofficially referred to as TPP-11.

There is renewed calls, led by Japan, Australia and New Zealand, to re-negotiate elements of the TPP to include appropriate provisions
to leave open the possibility of the USA re-entering the agreement in the future.

Democratic Pirates Australia opposes large, overpowering trade agreements such as the TPP and urge Australia to reconsider its increasingly
aggressive pursuit of TPP-11.

After the final details of the trade agreement were ironed out by former Australian Trade Minister, Andrew Robb, our Party was quickly drawn to the
conclusion that the TPP does not favor Australian trade, workers or our economic interests as it is being touted. Instead, it is an agreement
intended to favor big multi-national corporations and generate large profits.

Democratic Pirates Australia was drawn to our conclusion of opposition based on five specific elements surrounding the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement:

7 years of negotiations, shrouded in secrecy

Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)

Environment

Intellectual Property and Copyright

Pharmaceuticals

Specifically, we condemn the 7 years of secret negotiations and will always promote the process of transparency throughout negotiations of
trade agreements. Even more so for trade agreements which wield so much economic power and potential for ruin.

The inclusion of ISDS clauses and provisions are not uncommon in trade agreements. According to the Office of the United States Trade
Representative, various varieties of ISDS clauses are present in over 3,000 trade agreements worldwide. They do vary throughout these agreements.
Basically, the inclusion of this clause inside the TPP reveals the potential for large multi-national corporations to sue domestic governments if
they introduce law(s) that could potentially have impact on their profits of their services provided in the region.

The Environment Chapter is weak and does nothing of significance to aim to combat climate change. Additionally, we see nothing of significance
that encourages protection of the environment that is not already being pursued by local laws. This much is clarified by Wikileaks' own analysis
of the Environment Chapter, "When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses
or meaningful enforcement measures.". We echo this analysis.

Intellectual property and copyright are a natural and organic interest for The Pirate Party. Many aspects of the Intellectual Property Chapter
are wide ranging in its scope and have the potential for directly affecting freedom of information, civil liberties and the digital rights of
consumers. As a political party with direct focus on intellectual property and copyright reform, it is only natural that we approach this area of
the TPP with extreme caution. Aspects of the TPP's copyright provisions set extremely lengthy time-frames for copyright, before expiration and
eligibility to be released to the public domain. Additionally, the TPP puts heavy restrictions on public broadcast rights of copyrighted content.
The provisions covered under the Intellectual Property Chapter, with the inclusions of Copyright provisions are unacceptable and are many steps
backwards. They are designed to work in favor of copyright holders, producers and the studios that back them. These provisions should be designed
to find a fair and balanced middle-ground which will benefit consumers and content producers. Instead, the consumers are punished and we see the
TPP designed to work in favor of big profits and more controlling power by studios and their various heavily cashed up lobby groups.

Our concerns surrounding Pharmaceuticals are perfectly justified and echoed by many. The TPP forces healthcare authorities to give big
pharmaceutical companies crucial information about national decisions on public access to medicine and gives big corporations greater powers to
challenge decisions they believe to be harming their pharmaceutical business interests. Big pharma already have unchallenged power throughout
the developed world. The TPP is guaranteed to deliver them even more power and combined with ISDS, there will be even less legal avenues of
challenge for domestic governments to negotiate the best medical practices and medicine for citizens of their respective nation. Taking into
consideration the nature of the Intellectual Property Chapter and ISDS, we believe this is extremely dangerous and has detrimental
possibilities for the development of medicine and their availability through monopolistic ownership and unrealistic intellectual property retaining
time-frames.

We will continue to oppose the TPP and fight for better outcomes for Australians, through implementation of local laws which are devised,
presented, negotiated and debated in full public view with complete transparency. Political legislation should never be developed and negotiated
in complete secrecy, as the TPP has been and continues to be with fresh negotiations of TPP-11 set to ramp up soon.

October 9, 2017 | Civil Liberties and Privacy More Important than Mass-Surveillance Expansion

Democratic Pirates Australia condemns the latest proposal by the Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to establish a
national photo identification database.

Our Party remains concerned of the wider security issues that come as a result of any centralized national database.

We believe the database directly violates the rights to privacy of the citizens of Australia. There is no justification for the
establishment of such an invasive program which questions its own legitimacy based on privacy rights.

We feel that there is every possibility that the database and its collected information will be integrated into more sophisticated programs
operated by our intelligence agencies, with a possible extension of access to our international partners for further integration into the
global mass-surveillance networks.

We know these mass-surveillance programs exist. We understand their role. However, we believe their existence and intended purpose is not a
free ticket to continue to be expanded through further creation of new programs which aim to fill in the gaps of information on citizens that
may currently be missing.

Democratic Pirates Australia will continue to push for the upholding of civil liberties and privacy rights and will always advocate that
surveillance programs remain limited in operation, targeted and propose that further enhancements be made to their operations through increased
oversight and transparency.

Only once an appropriate balance of oversight and transparency is implemented should we look at further enhancements and refinement to existing
mass-surveillance programs. At the very core of our Party's principles, upholding civil liberties and privacy are our main concern over further
enhancement of mass-surveillance programs under the deceiving blanket excuse of "national security" which is used much too often.

October 7, 2017 | Democratic Pirates Supports an Australian Space Agency and Increased Science and Research Investment

We support the establishment of an Australian-based national space agency. Exploration of space, our galaxy and the wider universe is
key to human development and is a natural extension of our want for knowledge in science.

Space exploration - especially private space exploration - is a major growth industry and adds significantly to a nation's economy both
directly through high-skill jobs creation and indirectly through the support industries that grow around it. Australia already hosts a
number of space research facilities; what is missing is an agency to coordinate, manage and encourage participation in growing this field as
a resource for the nation. We would support a significant amount of budget dollars to be placed into the initial and future investment of
such center, to ensure it has the necessary funds readily available to make the significant scientific contributions that an Australian
space agency could produce and to guarantee it operates at its full potential.

Australian scientists have made many contributions to astronomy through a range of projects and programs, both domestically and
internationally. However, this has been limited in scope due to the current absence of a national-based agency.

We see a national space agency as a perfect solution to grow our academic science community. There is also the added benefit of spawning
new interest in the STEM area of study. We see a space agency as a perfect incentive for young people to take a keen interest in this field
of scientific study and the opportunities have the potential to reach far beyond simply astronomy and space.

We see a national space agency as key in keeping the STEM graduates in Australia and significantly contributing to economic growth. It
would allow Australia to be an equal player in the multi-national space community, a peer to America, the EU and Russia.

Once a national space agency is established, we would like to see the CSIRO receive an increase in funding, a new focus placed on climate
science and research and a working scientific relationship established between the CSIRO and a national space agency.

Democratic Pirates Australia supports the Government's efforts in bringing the concept of a space agency to the forefront of scientific
focus.

October 1, 2017 | Unreleased Report of the European Commission and the Effects of Copyright Infringement (Piracy) on Legal
Digital Media Sales

A previously unreleased European Commission report from 2015 revealing that piracy of digital media has statistically no impact to the
majority of digital media sales, was placed into the public domain by Julia Reda, a member of the Pirate Party Germany.

The Report was accessed and released by a freedom of information request. If no request was ever filed, the the Report may never have
been made available in the public domain. Democratic Pirates Australia commends Julia Reda for successfully requesting access of the Report
and making it available in the public domain.

The Report, established by the European Commission and conducted by Dutch firm, Ecorys, was made final in 2015 and is based on 2014 data,
across 6 European nations, including Germany, UK, Spain, France, Poland and Sweden. It consists of over 300-pages and is focused on the
"relation between online copyright infringement (digital piracy) and sales of copyrighted content" of music, audio/visual, books and games.

The details provided in the Report paint a very familiar picture of what has been known and advocated by Pirate Parties around the world
and many in the industry. Yet it seems almost too convenient that when details are illustrated to highlight lack of sufficient evidence to
support the notion that piracy continues to be a major contributor to legal digital media sales, the true representative facts are suppressed,
not highlighted in their true context or presented in mainstream commercial media to paint a different picture which is usually set to work in
the favor of the commercial networks interests and advertisers.

The Report's Executive Summary concludes, "In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by
online copyright infringements. That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove
with sufficient reliability that there is an effect. An exception is the displacement of recent top [cinematic] films.".

Essentially, it's safe to conclude there is no significant long-term negative effect to legal and legitimate sales of digital media, despite
continuation of illegal access to pirated content, which is effectively copyright infringement.

Through the release of the Report, we hope to see questions being asked to the European Commission of why the findings were never released to
the public once it was made final. Additionally, we also hope it regenerates the political conversation around the world, pushed by international
Pirate Parties, that there is valuable, reliable and reputable evidence readily available that almost unanimously concludes to a large degree
that declined sales in digital media is not the direct and sole result of continued access to pirated content.

The secret to preventing piracy is to make legal access cheaper than pirating. But it must also have the same level of convenience and
flexibility of accessibility. Netflix and Amazon Prime have gone some way to achieve this. However, current services offered still fall shy in
allowing downloadable content, audio and video, for ease-of-portability once legally purchased. There is still too many restrictions being
imposed on legally purchased digital media. It's also significantly restricted by the mechanism of the streaming platform.

We reiterate the position of Democratic Pirates to express the lack of significant copyright reform. With the lack of suitable and effective
copyright reform, accompanied by the fact that media producers and distributors still fail to deliver consumer media in technical formats free of
digital rights management (DRM) and other proprietary technology which imposes restrictions on media flexibility, it has become obvious that piracy
is the next most convenient step to fill the void of accessibility and flexibility that the media industry continues to ignore in its constant
flame war on copyright infringement.

Copyright reform must also be always accompanied by fair-use provisions. We have for a long time advocated that fair-use be treated as equally
important as copyright reform. Together, they can absolutely help foster a sustainable and financially viable creative media industry that works
for providers, distributors and consumers.

Democratic Pirates will continue to push our copyright reform agenda as one of our major policy platforms of the Pirate Party, in addition to
fighting to maintain open and accessible internet free of censorship.

August 20, 2017 | Democratic Pirates Australia Solidarity to Spain

Once again, Democratic Pirates Australia finds ourselves expressing our thoughts and prayers to our international friends in Europe and
Pirate Party of Spain.

This weeks terror events that unfolded with striking similarity to previous European events of terror, have reminded us all that the
threat of domestic or home-grown terrorism is not yet over.

The methodology behind these events and how they are carried out are cowardly and are always viewed as an attack on the very democratic
values that we share and need to stand together to protect.

Today, we officially launch our #VoteYES campaign to help see marriage equality become reality in Australia.

Democratic Pirates Australia has a long standing Marriage Policy which in its entirety, promotes and advocates marriage equality
for everyone, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.

With last week's announcement from the Coalition Government that it will proceed with a voluntary postal plebiscite (also
referred to as a survey), we encourage all Australian's who are not yet registered with the Australian Electoral Commission to
commence to make immediate arrangements and register to become eligible to vote.

The choice of a postal plebiscite would not be our Party's choice of process to see the eventual establishment of marriage
equality in Australia, however we do support any effective measure that go towards seeing any very real possibility of establishment
of marriage equality, providing that it remains within the scope of our Party Policy and position that we take on such an important
matter.

The postal plebiscite will be voluntary, but we urge all registered Australian voters to participate in this important and
potentially historical decision for Australia and equal rights reform on marriage.

So please stand up, make your voices heard and make your vote count towards a more fair and equal system for marriage.

August 10, 2017 | Changes to Civil Servant's Social Media Guidelines are Draconian, Overzealous and Unjustified

The Australian Public Service Commission's social media guidelines have been amended. The new guidelines which appy to Australian
Government civil servants include changes that must be taken seriously and are simply unfair, unjustified and downright overzealous.

The latest changes include civil servants facing possible disciplinary action if they simply 'Like' content on Facebook or
other social media platforms if the content is critical of the Government in any way. That is just the beginning. The guidelines extend
further to content and comments posted online by anyone else who also shares the same negative or opposing views of the Government. And
if that very content is posted or shared to the civil servant's social media profile or page, then the guidelines instruct the servant
to delete the content or otherwise be faced with the possibility of further disciplinary action taken against the civil servant who fails
to comply.

There are many problems with these guidelines and our Party condemns the latest changes and deems them absolutely unjustified,
ridiculous and completely unnecessary. We understand the necessity and intent behind implementation of social media policies. However, in
this instance we believe the changes are much too strict and urge the Australian Public Service Commission to put an immediate halt on
the new changes and implement a more simplified social media policy that is more understanding and fair to legitimate social media usage
and reflective of civil servants' internet habits within Government departments.

The guidelines claim, "As members of the Australian community, Australian Public Service (APS) employees have the right to participate
in public and political debate.". We believe this opening statement of the guidelines to be absolutely contradictory to the text of the
guidelines. The Pirate Party always encourages political debate and questioning of the democratic values of Australia's political
environment. By claiming employees have the right to participate in public and political debate and then following up the statement later
in the text with guidelines that absolutely prevent that debate without the looming threat of retaliation as a response, is effectively
shutting down the debate before it commences. It is essentially preventing employees from contributing in public and political debate and
forcing them to share the view and political position of the Government of the day.

We are concerned that the guidelines outline the recommendation of adding a disclaimer to personal social media accounts to publicly
declare any views expressed are solely the views of the social media account holder and not of that of the employer. We believe this is
fair and reasonable and is currently common practice. But again, we see contradictory text in the guidelines that outlines the following,
"It's a good idea to include a statement on your social media platforms, or in individual posts if necessary, to the effect that your
views don't represent those of your employer. However, this won't always protect you from a finding that you have breached the Code."
In other words, it is effectively saying that you are free to have a social media account and you are free to use it, as long as you
promote the Government's political view points. However, you are not free to express your personal or political views through your personal
account as it will be deemed as "anti-government", according to the guidelines.

Furthermore, it is expected that social media account holders take full responsibility to what is posted on their social media accounts
and their associated social pages, not just from themselves but for that of other peoples comments and responses too. This is a ridiculous
assumption that social media account holders can personally monitor each of their social media accounts and essentially filter and censor
where required, any views that are deemed by the Government as opposite to that of the Government of the day.

Pirate Party President, Chris McGimpsey-Jones, makes his own position very clear on the matter, "It's absolutely absurd that social media
guidelines of this nature can be implemented without any effective opposition. It's a ridiculous situation and I can't believe that this has
been implemented as official Government supported guidelines for social media usage. It's effectively taking out the 'social' part out of
the equation of the social media formula and instead implies that everyone must share the same view of the Government or you're not entitled
to any view at all. Yes, it's absolutely crazy and I can't believe this is happening under a democratic political system. Our freedoms are
vanishing. And vanishing fast, yet no one seems to care. To be frank, it really bothers me.".

Disappointed and somewhat angered by negative, yet accurate media coverage of the changes from ABC and specifically The Australian, the
Australian Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd, responded with a Media Statement and claimed, "The APSC consulted extensively with APS
agencies and employees in late 2016. This consultation indicated that the policy settings did not need to change.". Mr. Lloyd added, "It is
not more restrictive than previous guidance. Rather, it clarifies the parameters around what public servants can and cannot say, and should
give greater confidence to APS employees when they are participating online activity.". Again, we must acknowledge to contradictory claims
made by Mr. Lloyd. The guidelines are greatly limiting, restricting and are censoring the freedom of expression of civil servants and by
making claims that indicate otherwise is simply false and unacceptable.

Democratic Pirates Australia firmly believes in civil liberties and the right to freedom of speech. This very right extends to the internet
and digital realm. We view expressing your opinion and communicating online to identify as no different to a conversation with your mates at
the local pub. Whether it be in the physical world or the cyber-world, communication is identified as exactly that - communication. Therefore,
we absolutely oppose to the truest extent any form of Government supported documentation that attempts to censor communication and impede on
our civil liberties and right to freedom of expression.

It has been reported on the Four Corners television program that water is being "stolen" by irrigators in the Barwon-Darling region of
the Murray-Darling Basin. The television program detailed accusations of cotton growers stealing billions of liters of water from the
Murray-Darling Basin, through methods of water meter tampering and other water delivery manipulative actions. Water that was purchased by
taxpayers and was intended to be returned to the environment under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Our Policy has always stated that Democratic Pirates Australia would call for a review of the current Water Act 2007. However, this should
not be taken out of context and we are absolutely in support of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and believe that control should remain with the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Democratic Pirates Australia President, Chris McGimpsey-Jones says, "Environmental matters are extremely
important to us. Especially the Murray-Darling Basin, hence why we have a dedicated Policy towards the Basin. We believe the current
Murray-Darling Basin Plan is the best option for water supply management and is necessary to ensure fair usage of the water from the Basin
for commercial agriculture, irrigators and community purposes.".

Management of the Murray-Darling Basin is a difficult task and ensuring that all parties who have access to the Basin's water supply
correctly understand and comply with the correct regulations, is a difficult and demanding task to enforce. Chris continues, "As with any
system or initiative, it can often be open to abuse, overuse or illegal activity. Therefore, accusations and reports of water theft or any
abuse of the provisions of the Murray-Darling Basic Plan and the Water Act 2007 must be taken seriously.".

Whilst debate is raging among politicians about what specific authority or government associated body should carry out any investigation
into the accusations, The Pirate Party reiterates our commitment to our Policy on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and we echo the calls for an
investigation into the matter.

We have no official Party position as to which authority or body should carry out any potential investigation, but we support the calls
made by Senators Nick Xenophon and Sarah Hanson-Young, who both state that a Senate Inquiry with full Parliamentary privilege is the best
course for investigative action.

Democratic Pirates Australia condemns the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, for his decision to announce the combining of
Australia's top intelligence and law enforcement bodies.

The announcement will see the intelligence agency ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and Border Force departments all combined into one
mega-department and take on the official title of "Home Affairs".

The new Home Affairs department is being described as a super-ministry and will be placed under the control of current Immigration Minister,
Peter Dutton.

If media reports are to be deemed as accurate, then The Pirate Party understands that the Cabinet, including key Liberal Ministers of the
Liberal Party advised against the establishment of such a large super-ministry. Additionally, it has since been reported that some Government
Ministers within the UK Parliament have also urged caution.

The cautionary advice has been ignored by Prime Minister Turnbull and it will proceed, against the advice by Cabinet Ministers and
members of the UK Parliament. The new Home Affairs department is said to to be based on the same UK platform of "Home Office".

Democratic Pirates Australia can see no sense in the combining of various departments and agencies which will ultimately give Peter Dutton
a massive amount of power and oversight responsibility. Our Party is not confident of the capacity of Peter Dutton to carry out his new
responsibilities to acceptable and lawful standards.

Such establishment of such a large department within Australia, we believe, is unjustified, not required and will give absolutely no
operational improvements or benefit to the current system of intelligence and law enforcement capabilities. Instead, The Pirate Party only
sees increased opportunities for the Government to abuse the platform as a new breeding ground for increased mass-surveillance and a reason
for the Australian Government to use the Home Affairs department as a means of justification for its increasing attacks on encryption and privacy
encroachment. The Government is focusing its attacks on the big technology companies in Silicon Valley which continue to make efforts to
safeguard our data by the use of encryption and other security measures - the same encryption and security measures of which the Australian
Government is currently seeking to break.

Despite the attacks on Silicon Valley and encryption, Facebook has since stated its firm position on ensuring the safety of Facebook user's
data and stated that it will refuse to comply with any legislation or requirements that attempt to break or weaken encryption of its software.
We commend Facebook for taking a firm position on encryption and placing the security of its users as a priority.

The Pirate Party will not stand for attempts to weaken or undermine encryption and privacy and we will stand up for Australia and its citizen's
right to privacy and digital rights.

June 25, 2017 | Pirate Party Supports Gonski 2.0, But Only a Starting Point for Greater Reform

Democratic Pirates Australia has major education reform in its scope. This will include fairly extensive improvements to the secondary
school curriculum, greater improvements on the precise details of existing subject teachings and better funding which will go towards a
more fair and improved network for the education system.

We commended the changes proposed to schools funding in our Budget 2017 Wrap-Up. Therefore, we support the Liberal Party's education
reform package as it follows the David Gonski model of "needs-based" funding - dubbed "Gonski 2.0".

We still stand by our Party Policy of pushing for private schools to be majority funded by an appropriate private funding model, with
the gradual withdrawal of Government funding which will see those funds directed back into the public school sector and with the growing
continuation of the needs-based funding model for public schools.

We also urge that attention to wages for teachers must be a priority, as without teachers needs and skills being appreciated through
reflective compensation, it will be school children's education that will experience the biggest effects of any fallout which will occur
from teachers leaving the education sector in search of greater employment opportunities that reward their high-demand experience and
skills. Investment in teachers must be seen as an investment in the education of the nation's children rather than a financial burden
of the education sector.

After exhaustive debate, Gonski 2.0 has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate after support was given by Liberal
Party members and the vital votes by crossbench Senators. Both Labor and The Greens unsurprisingly opposed the legislation and continue
to complain about miniscule negative politics rather than offer beneficial alternatives to Gonski 2.0 which can realistically be fully
costed and funded.

This is an excellent result and should not just be solely viewed as a win, rather a starting point for greater improvements and
further reform of the education sector. The Pirate Party intends to push for greater improvements in a bid to see better results for
Australian children in public schools.

Implementation of Gonski 2.0 is a great launching pad.

June 19, 2017 | Russian Interference in 2016 US Presidential Election

There are investigations currently underway by a variety of US Government associated departments and individuals, into Russian
interference in the 2016 US Presidential Election which resulted in Donald Trump becoming the new President.

There is lots of information available, some is speculation and some is fact. The most reliable source of information that we have
viewed is the document released to The Intercept, by a NSA Contractor and Intelligence Specialist, Reality Leigh Winner.

Democratic Pirates Australia is disappointed by the very fast arrest and detainment of Ms. Winner and we are equally disappointed better
security procedures were not employed that would have ensured this information was passed onto The Intercept in a more secure method which
did not see Ms. Winner detected and identified with such apparent ease.

The Intercept have been much too quiet on the arrest and detainment surrounding Reality Leigh Winner. However, we understand there is
potential legal issues that surround the matter and The Intercept could very well be limited in what comments or information they can
reveal.

Democratic Pirates acknowledges that the leaking of the secret report to The Intercept was illegal. But we also believe it be an
important document which is in the public interest. Therefore, we urge that this fact should be taken into consideration in any further
legal proceedings against the whistleblower.

There is major problems which need immediate and greater attention to which we believe are currently being missed by all the ongoing
political turmoil that surrounds the Trump Administration and potential interference in the 2016 by Russia.

While we do not refer to any specific nation in this instance, Democratic Pirates condemns any interference by any nation that carries out
any activities that could have any influence, directly or indirectly, on the outcome and results of a democratic election.

We can not simply dismiss the documents that have been leaked and published by media organizations as simply speculation. At their face
value, clearly the documents that Democratic Pirates has accessed and analyzed do demonstrate that actual tampering has occurred by Russian
associates. Whether it had any actual influence on the outcome is a little more complex to make a certified determination. But some of the
articles and stories that have been published to accompany these documents are speculation only. And in some cases, use references to
sources that one could argue the very existence of. Everyone must go back to the source documents themselves and put them under closer
scrutiny.

It is the job of any investigation team(s) to make determination of whether the activities of Russia have influenced the result
of the 2016 US Presidential Election. This is a fast moving investigation and we believe more documents and information will undoubtedly
surface before this chapter finds closure.

We must also take into account of potential Russian links to US President, Donald Trump. As we understand it, an investigation is
underway into this matter. This will also be taken account with any final assessment that Democratic Pirates Australia make. We could
possibly see a 'Constitutional Crisis' in the United States of America which involves the President and possible treason.

No conclusions can be drawn while both matters are still under investigation. Nor will our Party draw any conclusions until actual
charges have been put forward.

June 12, 2017 | Democratic Attacks on Encryption Must Be Stopped

As the world's leading democratic powers of the United Kingdom, United States of America and Australia continue to accelerate their
attacks on encryption under the predictable guise of increasing 'national security efforts in the face of terrorism', Democratic Pirates
Australia publicly reaffirm our commitment to upholding the protection of encryption and the right to privacy through computer security.

In the weeks leading up to the UK election campaign, Conservative Leader Theresa May, released her Party's Manifesto which contained
some very disturbing elements in relation to future plan for digital rights and security.

Democratic Pirates Australia has been combing over the UK Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto 2017.

We had initially been alerted by alarming media reports on plans for the Party to implement a highly restrictive and government
controlled internet across the country. As a Pirate Party which does take notice in international political matters of great importance,
we felt the need to act.

We find sections of the Manifesto in the "Prosperity and security in a digital age" chapter quite disturbing and if implemented to the
extent that we are led to believe, then Democratic Pirates must publicly condemn Theresa May and the UK Conservative Party for developing
such intrusive and undemocratic digital age policy held under the banner of internet safety and security. We strongly urge the Pirate Party
UK to apply immediate pressure on the Conservative Party and seek to reign in its overzealous and intrusive digital policy.

The UK already has some of the world's most intrusive surveillance operations, which has all been made legal through legislation which
has been enacted in recent years, most recently with the "Snooper's Charter". The GCHQ is a primary operations hub for the world's
mass-surveillance network and operates in collaboration with the National Security Agency (NSA) and its other intelligence partners within
the 'Five Eyes' nations which is built up of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

We are extremely concerned by some of the proposals that come to our Party's attention and aim to seek further information and better
detail in an effort to understanding just how exactly the proposed measures would be introduced, what specific technology would be used
and what specific techniques these so-called restrictions would implement.

As we continue to learn more about the plans to implement the aforementioned measures and gain a better understanding of its related
proposals through our Party's international politics focus, we intend to call out and oppose any such measures which would impede on the
freedoms that the internet enables. We will aim to ensure that any such changes do not have any immediate or future effects on net neutrality
and also seek to ensure that the global mass-surveillance ring, assisted greatly by the operations of the GCHQ, does not get an increase in
spying and surveillance powers other than what can be naturally justified as proper national security necessity.

Democratic Pirates is absolutely committed to protecting the right to privacy and will always advocate for the freedom of use of
encryption in software and technical form, in a bid to protect the privacy of individuals and business.

We have contacted the Pirate Party UK and offered our support. We will continue to advocate that rights to privacy through encryption
must be uphold on a global level. We oppose any measures will seek to impede, alter, challenge or block the use, development or
implementation of encryption or any other measure of computer security.

As the world's most powerful governments continue to introduce legislation to legalize their extensive networks of mass-surveillance,
encryption must not be used as a political tool to attempt to justify such overreach of parliamentary privilege.

Democratic Pirates Australia is currently combing over the fresh release of the UK Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto 2017.

We had been alerted by alarming media reports on plans for the Party to implement a highly restrictive and government controlled internet
across the country, if it is re-elected in upcoming elections.

We find sections of the Manifesto in the "Prosperity and security in a digital age" chapter quite disturbing and if implemented to the
extent that we are led to believe, then Democratic Pirates must publicly condemn Theresa May and the UK Conservative Party for developing
such intrusive and undemocratic digital age policy held under the banner of internet safety and security. We strongly urge the Pirate
Party UK to do the same and apply immediate pressure on the Conservative Party and seek to reign in its overzealous and intrusive digital
policy.

The UK already has some of the world's most intrusive surveillance operations, which has all been made legal through legislation which
has been enacted in recent years. The GCHQ is a primary operations center for the world's mass-surveillance network and operates in
collaboration with the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence partners in the 'Five Eyes' nations - USA, UK, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand.

We are concerned by some of the proposals that come to our Party's attention and aim to seek further information and better detail in
an effort to understanding just how exactly the proposed measures would be introduced, what specific technology would be used and what
specific techniques these so-called restrictions would implement.

We are combing through the document in detail. When we establish and gain a better understanding of the aforementioned proposals,
through our Party's international politics focus, we intend to call out and oppose any such measures which would impede on the freedoms
that the internet enables. We will aim to ensure that any such changes do not have any immediate or future effects in net neutrality and
also seek to ensure that the global mass-surveillance ring, through the operations of the GCHQ, does not get an increase in spying and
surveillance powers other than what can be naturally justified as proper national security necessity.

May 20, 2017 | Sweden Drops Investigation into Julian Assange

Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia are continued supporters of the cause of Julian Assange and his continued,
unlawful and unjustified detainment to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England, in the United Kingdom (UK).

Last night, it was revealed that after 7 years of political stalemate, Sweden has declared that all avenues to pursue any pending
investigation into Mr. Assange have been exhausted and have formally stopped any further potential for pursuit of investigation. This also
results in any outstanding arrest warrant(s) from Swedish authorities be formally revoked.

The supposed sexual assault investigation against Mr. Assange has always remained flawed. We understand that the pursuit of Mr. Assange
from Sweden was never about sexual assault allegations - it was political and an attack on Mr. Assange's activities with publishing
organization Wikileaks, which he remains Editor-in-Chief.

Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia absolutely stand by Mr. Assange and will continue to support his cause, civil
right to freedom and his extended publishing responsibilities.

Despite the dropping of investigations and arrest warrant(s) by Sweden, Mr. Assange remains detained to the Ecuadorian Embassy, by
continued threats of immediate arrest by UK authorities if he is to leave the premises.

As a result of the looming threats of arrest by the UK, Mr. Assange remains detained.

Together, Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia unite and urge the UK Government to reconsider its threats of arrest,
follow Sweden and allow for Mr. Assange to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and guarantee free passage to safety.

Additionally, we urge the Australian Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Immigration Minister to support Mr. Assange's right to freedom
and establish immediate dialog with the UK Government and its authorities, in effort to seeking a quick and safe resolution to the prolonged
political stand-off, which will lead to a secure release of Julian Assange.

May 10, 2017 | Budget 2017 Wrap-Up

Yesterday, Australia's Treasurer, Scott Morrison, delivered the Budget 2017 papers, accompanied by
his Parliamentary speech. Democratic Pirates Australia is quite impressed by the level of fairness that
has been delivered by the Liberal Party.

Fairness does not have to written in black and white text. But our Party has fairness for all Australians
at the very heart of all of our Policy. Furthermore, fairness is important to creating and maintaining
equality among society and no democratic institute can move forward into a positive future,
especially economically, if fairness can not be appropriately delivered by the government of the day.

Below, we have a complete Party wrap-up of Budget 2017 and outline a few key areas of importance.
Most areas we commend the Coalition for their budget efforts. Yet, there are a couple of areas which
probably did not get the attention and changes they require and rightly deserve.

Thank you to ABC News, The Australian and Herald Sun for the great coverage of Budget 2017 and
providing our Party with the data and details for our analysis, through their various budget
publications.

Public Broadcasting

Of great importance to Pirate Party is public broadcasting. We are proud to see that the budgets for
ABC and SBS have not been touched or reduced any further. Albeit, they have not increased to a level
which our Party deems necessary for the public broadcasters to operate to their full potential. But we
do take solace that they have not received any further funding reductions.

Media Reform

We have already published a short post to our Facebook Page supporting the recent media reform
announcements. The budget outlines further changes which will see the current free-to-air annual
license fee abolished and replaced with a much reduced annual payment. This will result in potential
savings of $90 million a year for the TV networks.

The changes will see free-to-air TV networks being able to better compete with digital mediums.
Cable subscription TV networks will also have a better chance to bid for broadcasting rights of major
sports events. There will also be additional funding provided which will go towards helping with the
broadcasting of womens sport.

Also included in the changes is the expected ban on gambling advertising during live sports
broadcasts.

Pirate Party supports most of the media reform changes. However, we do have a Free-to-air sports
broadcasting Policy which would implement further changes and see free-to-air TV networks getting
priority over cable subscription TV networks for major sports events.

We feel that current regulations and the proposed media reform changes don't go far enough to
protecting free-to-air sports broadcasts and believe lots more needs to be done to prevent major
sports events being swallowed up by cable subscription TV networks.

Education and College

Education reform and funding has been a major pillar of Budget 2017. We believe that the Coalition is
on the right track to deliver better, appropriate funding and a more relevant funding model, whilst
remaining effective and affordable.

The budget will see schools receive an extra $18.6 billion over 10 years.

The new model is backed by the reputable David Gonski and has charmingly been dubbed "Gonski
2.0". It lays out a plan to have schools receive funding based on needs' data, whilst aiming to remain
fair across the public and private school sectors.

We commend the Government for their efforts to education reform and funding as it is very much
needed and well overdue for an improved and affordable funding model to be implemented, that
respects the challenging economic climate that Australia still faces.

College education has also had some changes, which our Party supports. College fees will increase
$2,000 to $3,600 for a standard 4 year course. Additionally, the income rate which needs to be
reached before college debt must be repaid has been reduced.

There will still be no upfront cost for students to attend courses and college debt is only to be repaid
once students are employed and reach an annual salary of $42,000+.

Although there is some initial public disappointment with the college education changes among some
Australians and students, our Party believes that the changes will result in young people taking a
more serious approach to college education following High School.

We also believe that it will result in those attending college, to take a more serious approach to the
education provided and only students that truly want to progress in society and better their
education and knowledge will take up the opportunity of attending college. This will eventually
eradicate the scheme of students attending college for reasons of delaying entry into the workforce
and refusing to contribute to society in greater form.

Big Banks

A new levy will be created which will see Australia's big four banks (National Australia Bank,
Commonwealth Bank, ANZ and Westpac) paying more share of their exorbitant profits, in what is
essentially a new tax.

Macquarie Bank is also set to be included.

The levy will commence on July 1, 2017. It will be aimed at generating $6.2 billion over forward
estimates.

We support the changes and believe the new levy should be charged at a higher rate than the 0.06%
being implemented. However, we support the levy in its proposed state and would support changes
into the future which could see an increase in the levy % or simply changes that could be see the %
rate based on the massive profits of the big four banks.

Welfare

We will be seeing some consolidation in welfare payments. This can only be a good thing and will
result in recipients on Newstart and Sickness Allowance be rolled into the new JobSeeker Payment.

There are no changes to the payment rate, although there will be random drug and alcohol testing be
placed on some new welfare recipients.

Welfare has probably been the biggest failure of the budget and Pirate Party believes that the
Coalition has failed Australian welfare recipients, again. Furthermore, implementing random drug and
alcohol testing on some recipients which the Government deem at risk of substance abuse is one step
too far. It is impeding on the freedom and civil rights of Australians. By giving the Government
permission to segregate specific persons and deem them at risk of substance abuse and place them
into a basket of special category, will undoubtedly have a dramatic negative effect on the self-esteem
of those who are already feeling socially vulnerable and at a low point.

Pirate Party supports the changes to payments which sees categorical consolidation. But we condemn
the changes which will see welfare recipient segregation and making inaccurate assumptions based
on the bad life choices of just a few. It is completely unjustified and has the potential to unleash a
variety of legal issues and probable challenges.

Further changes include job seekers up to the age of 49 being required to attend approved activities
of up to 49 hours per fortnight. Our Party also condemns these kinds of approved activities"
initiatives on the basis that we believe welfare recipient's time would be better spent on actual job
seeking activities. Every hour spent on approved activities is an extra hour taken away from the
recipient being able to use that time for proper job seeking activities.

NDIS

The National Disability Insurance Scheme will now be fully funded, which will be the result of changes
to Medicare Levy payments by Australian taxpayers.

Although the changes will not come into effect until July 1, 2019, we support them and believe that
the tiny burden put onto taxpayers is worth it, to ensure that the NDIS is fully funded and not be put
at risk of tarnishing future budgets by being shortchanged.

First Home Buyers

The Coalition has outlined a new initiative in the budget which will see consumers have to ability to
contribute through Superannuation payments to a special account which can then be used for a home
deposit.

Pirate Party has been ahead of all other mainstream political parties and we have an entire Policy that
would implement changes to Superannuation and allow limited and controlled access to funds, to be
used for very specific purposes. Superannuation access for a home deposit is one access option of our
Policy.

Although our own Party's Policy option includes access of existing funds up to a maximum of $25,000,
we commend the Coalition for the proposed changes despite the slight variation of implementation
method.

Defense and Intelligence

There are no changes to defense force funding. However, intelligence agencies are set to get a boost.

We believe current levels of Australian Defense Force funding is appropriate, however we do not
believe that intelligence agencies require an increase, based on accessible information.

It's a difficult sector to develop Policy for, due to the secrecy involved in exact numbers of funding
provided for ASIO and its intelligence partners. ASIO is set to receive an increase, although budget
information does not reveal how much, obviously due to national security reasons.

Pirate Party urges more transparency in the area of funding that is provided to Australia's intelligence
agencies. Additionally, we urge the Government to ensure that the increased funding is used to
legitimate domestic and international intelligence operations that do not impede on civil and privacy
rights of Australians. It must also ensure that increased funds are not used to simply expand ASIO
already extensive mass-surveillance program, when any expansion would be completely unjustified.

Foreign Aid

Finally, foreign aid is set to be frozen for two years, from 2018.

Our Party Policy in the area of Foreign Aid is currently scheduled for review. It remains unclear at this
early stage what exact details our Party would settle on for this area, however we would support a
freeze on current foreign aid levels as we advocate that all foreign aid should remain for humanitarian
reasons and Australia should always ensure that foreign aid funds are being used to improve local
conditions in the region being provided and not for illegitimate purpose.

May 10, 2017 | Australian Federal Police Illegal Access to Metadata

Recently, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were embroiled in turmoil, following the revelation that members within the Federal law
enforcement agency had previously accessed the metadata of a journalist, without a warrant.

The Pirate Party points out that this is illegal. For AFP officers to legally acquire access to metadata, a warrant must be obtained.
There are specific elements in relation to this report that stand out and are a serious cause for concern for the Australian public.
Initially, it was being reported that the said illegal access was limited to one journalist. Since, reports and documents have been revealed
by media organization The Guardian, which confirm that there are more claims of AFP illegally accessing metadata, than initially
reported.

We condemn the AFP for this intolerable behavior and call for a proper investigation into the matter be carried out. We also call for any
eventual Report into the matter be made accessible in the public domain, in redacted form if necessary. But we urge a specific element of
transparency to be followed in relation to any potential investigation.

The Pirate Party is taking the opportunity for make the call for metadata laws to be reviewed, again, to determine what suitable
amendments must be made to ensure this can not happen again in the future, and also strengthen transparency measures and increased
oversight.

February 19, 2017 | Immediate and Future Safety of Julian Assange

Today, we are releasing a Joint Press Statement from Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia.

Through this Statement, both parties wish to publicly express our concerns for the safety of Julian Assange, who continues to be
detained to the Ecuadorian Embassy, in London.

Our concerns lie with his future, after the result is declared for the upcoming Ecuadorian Presidential Election. Specific candidates
have made public claims, on the record, that Mr. Assange will be asked to vacate the Embassy within 30 days shall they successfully gain
entry to Presidential office as the new Ecuador President.

Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates have invested heavily in the veracity of Mr. Assange's advocacy, as Editor of Wikileaks,
for the open release of information without prejudice. Our organizations do outline that his adamant partisanship during the US
Presidential Election and the dubious provenance of the Democratic leaks, not disavowing the information as being unverified as far as source
and content, have changed the tone to a certain degree, of public opinion towards Wikileaks from an impartial source to just another
instrument of expression driven by Mr. Assange's personal beliefs.

Had Mr. Assange simply done as he has done in the past and released Wikileaks publications and documents related to the US Election
without editorializing and with full disclosure of the provenance of the information, he would have remained a pillar of open information
and source for journalistic research, with legitimate right to ask for sanctuary.

However, we wish to continue by stating our support for Julian Assange has not changed and the issue(s) we have are completely separate
to that of his involvement with Wikileaks, rather are to do with his personal safety as a political refugee if he were to be 'requested',
somewhat forcibly, to vacate himself from the Ecuadorian Embassy and into the arms of arrest by British law enforcement which keep 24/7
surveillance on the Embassy.

If Mr. Assange were to vacate the Embassy and following his arrest by British officials, he would undoubtedly be handed on to US law
enforcement and immediately have his civil rights put to immediate scrutiny.

The question - Is he a legitimate political/journalistic refugee and how should his exit status be treated? This will be a test.

Whatever the result of the Ecuadorian Presidential Election, we urge all parties to continue the rightful path of dealing with the very
unusual situation and stalemate that Mr. Assange is surrounded by.

We also outline that his detainment to the Embassy has been deemed illegal by the United Nations (UN) and request has previously been
made by the UN to release Mr. Assange.

In conclusion, Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia urges calm and responsible action to take course and all
involved parties to respect all legal entitlements of Julian Assange and to also uphold his civil and human rights, which have so far been
violated on too many occasions.

November 1, 2016 | Australia Continues Down the Road to Immigration Ruin and Torture

Again, Democratic Pirates Australia sees it fit to be expressing our firm condemnation of the Australian Government, on its policy on
immigration and attacks on asylum seekers and refugees.

If media reports are to be correct, the Coalition led by Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, will introduce new immigration legislation
when Parliament returns to sitting next week. The new legislation is said to include harsher measures which will ensure those seeking
refugee status in Australia and asylum seekers arriving by boat, never become citizens or be able to call Australia home.

The new legislation will also see those detained on Manus Island and Nauru face a very uncertain future. The time for closure of these
centers is slowly ticking. However, the Government has not yet revealed any plans of how they will deal with detainees should any offshore
detention center face closure.

Pirate Party President, Chris McGimpsey-Jones says, "Again, these poor people detained offshore have no clear indication of where their
future is heading, or where they will be on 2, 5 or 10 years time. It's an outrage that the citizens of Australia continue to allow this to
happen. This is a democracy, but it's quickly fading along with our 'fair-go' ethos. The citizens of this country need to seriously take a
good hard look at who they are voting into power, and who they keep voting into power, despite continued attacks on our once great
country's democratic values".

Democratic Pirates Australia's Chairman, Brett Brennan, who currently resides in the USA draws similar comparisons to the US system,
"Just as in America, the laws passed by Congress are a reflection of those who elect them". Brett continues, "If Pauline Hanson can
command a sizable minority of voters, if Australians aren't petitioning their MP and demanding that anti-immigrant legislation be banned
from consideration, then we can't condemn the Government. Democracy means democracy. The People can be explicit with their demands or,
by remaining silent, condone actions taken in their name. The new immigration laws are a reflection of both".

"This, and other issues, are not a direct fault of the Government in either country. Their actions are reflecting the desires of the
people, both explicit and implicit. This is Democracy in action. If we want to change the laws, we first have to change the people.",
Brett concludes.

The new legislation set to be introduced next week has been questioned on legality, in accordance with international law and several
aspects of United Nations Declarations in relation to potential acceptance and treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.

Democratic Pirates Australia remains committed to our Party Policy, which welcomes legitimate refugees and those seeking asylum in
Australia, who have legitimately fled persecution in war effected countries. We advocate that processing must take place on mainland
Australia under close supervision by an oversight body and appropriate transparency enabled, which allows for journalists and media
entities to monitor operations in any such center.

The secrecy must stop. Offshore centers must be shutdown, without delay. We will continue to advocate our stance and push our Policy
as a viable alternative to current harsh immigration policy. Democratic Pirates has previously contacted the Immigration Minister, Peter
Dutton MP, and also the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. To date, all our requests for response and confirmation our correspondence
has been received, has been ignored.

The silence from both Liberal and Labor on serious immigration reform is deafening. The noise being created for increased restrictions
on asylum seekers and effectively allowing for the enablement of torture in offshore detention, and penalties applied to whistleblowers
who expose misconduct, is equally deafening.

We call upon the citizens of Australia to wake up, speak up, take action and demand change and reform which works in favor or
protecting those who are most vulnerable - Asylum Seekers and Refugees.

August 22, 2016 | Marriage Equality Plebiscite, Possibly Delayed

Although it has not been officially announced by the Coalition, it was reported on the weekend that the Government is to delay the
plebiscite for Marriage Equality, until February 2017.

The Labor Party is pushing the whole "broken promise" point, which has become a disappointing routine for the opposition, whilst
The Greens are condemning the delay and asking why the matter can't be dealt with inside the chambers of the Parliament.

Labor does have a valid argument, by stating that any plebiscite would be based on a marriage equality bill that no one in the public
has yet seen. There is no draft of the bill (that we are aware of) and we are not yet convinced that any such draft of any marriage
equality bill even exists.

Although the marriage equality issue could be dealt with accordingly through the usual Parliamentary process, inside the chamber,
our Party would prefer the matter to go to a plebiscite as we feel it is a very important issue which should allow for all Australians
to display their point-of-view.

Democratic Pirates Australia recognizes the issue at hand and its greater importance. Our Party calls for the Liberal Party to
present the bill text, prior to any plebiscite given a set date and provide Australians a guarantee that the Party will proceed to
support and implement the necessary processes to get the legislation into full effect and become law, allowing all couples to marry
with equality and without judgement - assuming that the decision were to be a "YES" vote.

Democratic Pirates Australia would preference to abolish the existing Marriage Act and replace it with a Civil Unions Act. However,
our Party is open to compromise providing the correct worded legislation is in-effect - will provide and ensure non-discriminatory,
gender neutral and non-religion specific marriage equivalent equality is enabled.

Democratic Pirates Australia offers our sincere condolences in light of the latest mass-shooting in Orlando, United States of America.
Of course, this extends to the friends and family of the victims.

Suggestions have been made that the man did have sympathetic views towards Islamic State terrorist group, but it does appear to be the
work of a lone-wolf with extremist views and hatred towards LGBT individuals.

The mass-shooting has been dubbed the worst in the country's history, which has resulted in the deaths of 50+ people and another 50+
injured.

Democratic Pirates condemns the actions taken out by this disturbed individual and supports community integration of LGBT persons, without
judgment.

Our Party offers the United States of America our sincerest condolences and solidarity for all Americans who have been affected by this
horrific event.

March 29, 2016 | Democratic Pirates Australia Solidarity to Belgium

Democratic Pirates Australia expresses our Party's deepest sympathy to the people of Belgium, in light of a recent series of bombings in
Brussels.

The bombings have been declared the work of terrorist organization, Islamic State (IS/ISIS/ISIL).

Our Party condemns all actions of terrorism and views the bombings in Brussels as an extension of the growing attack on democracy and
freedom within the Eurozone.

We offer the country of Belgium our sincerest condolences and solidarity for the people of a peaceful and democratic country.

Democratic Pirates Australia reaches out to our friends at Pirate Party of France to express our Party's condolences in light of recent
terrorist attacks in Paris, France.

Terrorism has no place in a modern, democratic and open society. Our own Party condemns such actions of these fundamental extremists and
recognize all terrorist events should be condemned on a global level.

We would like to wish Pirate Party of France and the country all the best and hope that democratic principles prevail and succeed long
into the future for France.

August 18, 2015 | Marriage Equality for All Australians

On Monday August 17, Liberal Party member, Warren Entsch introduced a same-sex marriage bill to Parliament.

The issue of same-sex marriage and marriage equality for all is under debate within the Australian political arena and within the
community. There is understandable argument and counter-argument on both sides of the topic. Democratic Pirates Australia retains its
position on the issue that no couple should be discriminated against, based on the their sexual orientation and choice.

Democratic Pirates Australia Policy on Marriage remains the same; we believe the Marriage Act should be replaced by a Civil Unions
Act.

We must point out that although this remains our stance, our Party is open to discussion and conversation and would support a bill
or other such move which allows for same-sex couples to legally unite in the same respect that heterosexual couples enjoy, providing
the legislation eliminates all surrounding discriminative barriers in which same-sex couples currently face and therefore prevents
them from a legal recognition of their union.

********************************************************

FPUorg (v3.0)

#philanthropy #charity #research

FPUorg was founded in mid-2014 with the intention to separate the charitable operations of Freedom Publishers Union into its own
entity, which allows FPUorg to concentrate on our primary goals, objectives and achieve success.

The ultimate purpose of FPUorg is to give something good back to the world, through supporting various charities and organizations
which rely on community funding and donations to operate. Our donations and support are rarely publicly declared or documented by us,
as we give to a wide-range of organizations, seeking no credit in return for doing so.

Throughout 2018, FPUorg expanded its operations scope to information research. We provide information consultation and research
services to publishers that require quality, detailed and accurate information.

Supported Projects

Wikileaks

Linux Foundation

Free Software Foundation

Wikimedia Foundation

Australian Paralympic Committee

Red Cross Australia - Tropical Cyclone Winston Appeal

World Vision Australia - Syrian Refugee Fund

Cancer Council Australia

Allison Baden-Clay Children's Trust Fund

Animal Liberation

Animals Asia

Landcare Queensland

Animal Welfare League of QLD

Making a small difference, where we can.

********************************************************

Tecseek Technology (v3.0)

#open-source #freedom #software #technology #linux #windows

DISCLAIMER

At Tecseek Technology, we always make every attempt possible to test all software we write about and recommend. In some cases, it may not
be possible to test the application in-full. In such a case, GC Media Publishing Management will not be held legally liable or responsible, in any way,
for any discomfort/harm occurred to anyone or any form of damage/failure to any software/hardware as a result of using an application, product
or service that we publish information on, have reviewed and/or recommended (or not recommended).

July 2, 2018 | Linux Mint 19 "Tara" (Cinnamon) Review (Part 3 of 3)

We have reached the end of our journey with Linux Mint 19. The last desktop environment we're going to take a quick look at is
Cinnamon.

Cinnamon has a similar founding to that of MATE. Cinnamon was also forked from earlier GNOME source code. It was forked due to
discontent over the development path that official GNOME development was taking, which effectively resulted in GNOME Shell that we have
today. Mint developers took Cinnamon in a different direction to GNOME 3 and instead decided to stick with traditional desktop
principles.

How does Cinnamon compare to its XFCE and MATE sisters? Well, pretty average actually. Cinnamon is much more system resource intensive
by nature. Visually, it looks just as stunning, but simple desktop usage offers a quick insight into its underlying focus on appearance.

Installation was all the same, with Tecseek Technology deciding to stick with BtrFS for our Cinnamon desktop. When you first boot into
Cinnamon you will notice a small dialog box pop up which warns you of graphics running in software mode. This is one major contributor to the
Cinnamon desktop being slightly slower than its sister desktops. You have two options. You can actually leave Cinnamon running in software
mode and suffer the slight performance lag and extra strain it will put on your CPU. Or, you can jump into the Driver Manager and install the
appropriate graphics driver for your hardware. Once the driver is installed, it will greatly improve the performance of Cinnamon.

Software selection as mentioned in previous Reviews of M19, is the same. Cinnamon does inherit support for desktop Extensions, which is all
handled by the included tool in Cinnamon. There's also support for Desklets. You can simply right-click on the Cinnamon desktop and click Add
Desklets. You will need to update the cache, but that only takes a few seconds. You can then scroll through a list of available Desklets to
install. Personally, we like our desktop nice and clean and prefer to have minimal items in this space. But we can see the benefits of adding
perhaps Google Calendar a the Weather Desklet. What we do like on our desktop is visual verbose feedback of system resources. We tried the
System Monitor Desklet but found it didn't work. We received a warning symbol which detailed that the desktop has potential to crash Cinnamon.
We tried it. While it failed to crash Cinnamon (a sign of Cinnamon's resilience perhaps?), the Desklet did fail to load. So we instead tried
the CPU Usage Desklet combined with the top output Desklet. Together, they add an extra layer of spice to the system. We liked it so much we
actually left them running. It kind of resembles Conky, albeit not quite as configurable as Conky's Lua ability.

We have a confession. When Cinnamon was first forked, our experience with it was horrible. There was a time when we just outright refused to
use it, instead favoring MATE. Early versions of Cinnamon were horrible, slow, would not allow much customization and were just not very nice
to use. Regular readers of our Linux reviews will understand by now that Tecseek Technology is quite harsh in our criticism and sometimes
brutally honest. If we don't like something or think something is crap, we let our readers know it's crap. It's that simple. Lots of things have
changed with Cinnamon. It's matured and been tweaked and is now actually quite pleasant to use. On previous iterations where there was just so
much that the user was unable to customize, we're glad to see now it can all be changed. Right-clicking on just about everything will offer you
custom options to change it. That's what we like in our desktops - choice. And we're glad Cinnamon is now ready to be seriously considered as a
usable desktop, by Tecseek Technology.

The time has come when you may now be asking the question - So which desktop do I download and install for M19?

We have a couple of answers to that question. If you have the system resources to spare and download bandwidth is not an issue for you, then
download all three and give them a try in Live Mode running inside Oracle VM VirtualBox. If this is not possible for you and you need to settle
on a single option based on a recommendation from us, then we're going to recommend you install the XFCE desktop. Though, it must be understood
that our recommendation of XFCE is based on our pre-existing love for the XFCE desktop environment. And this is exactly what we mentioned before.
Your choice will most likely be based on previous experience you've had with a specific desktop environment. Because the truth is that all three
desktop options for M19 are excellent and worth installing.

M19 is a great release. There are only a few quirks and niggles that are pulling on our annoyance strings, but they are easy resolved within
seconds. What you are guaranteed to get is a very well performing, stable desktop, with the great backbone support of Ubuntu. Surely, that's
enough to entice you to install Linux Mint 19.

July 2, 2018 | Linux Mint 19 "Tara" (MATE) Review (Part 2 of 3)

Tecseek Technology has already looked at the XFCE release of Linux Mint 19. For the second Review, it's time we take a look at the MATE
desktop. Let's not waste anymore space on its introduction. Instead, we're going to jump right in.

The installer for the MATE release of M19 is the same Ubiquity installer used for all releases. The same installation process applies.
Only this time, we paid more attention to disk partitioning and opted to install using BtrFS, instead of ext4 which we regretfully chose
for the XFCE release. Installation using BtrFS was no quicker than using ext4 but everything worked without any issues. That's what
matters.

The advantage of opting to install on a BtrFS partition over ext3/4 is you can utilize Timeshift to create system Snapshots so you can
restore your system to a specific point if things go pear shaped. Timeshift has now been included in a few distributions that have rolled
through the office of Tecseek Technology. As BtrFS becomes more mainstream as the default filesystem for Linux distributions, we predict
to see more of them including Timeshift to complement the Snapshot capabilities of BtrFS.

Speaking of 'shifty' things, M19 also includes Redshift. It's a small utility which sits in the desktop panel and automatically controls
the color temperature of the displays, according to the time of day and translated position of the sun in accordance to the time and
location. As humans are gradually becoming more aware of the extended hours we as humans spend in front of our digital displays, tools like
Redshift become more useful and more popular.

We were mightily impressed with how well XFCE performs with M19. The good news is the MATE desktop easily lives up to the same
performance standards. And it looks every part as good too. There's not much difference between the two, actually. MATE was forked from the
old GNOME 2 base source code. At the time GNOME 2 was in active development it's performance was relatively similar to that of the XFCE
desktop environment. That performance baseline has continued with the development of the MATE desktop, with performance still impressive.
Especially comparing it to the more interactive-esque modern desktops of GNOME Shell (or GNOME 3) and or even KDE Plasma, which is slowly
becoming bloated. It's not quite there yet, but it's something the developers should be concerned about. But there is no such bloat worry
with M19 and MATE.

The software selection is identical across the board with all desktop releases of M19. All the same major offerings apply on the MATE
desktop too.

The only major difference in comparing MATE to XFCE (or Cinnamon) is that MATE uses Caja as its default graphical file manager. This is
a moot point though, as their primary functions are almost identical.

We had some issues on the XFCE desktop with the updated Linux kernel not being pulled in with the rest of the updates when using APT in
a terminal console. We performed the exact same routine in MATE and the same problem occurs. It's effectively a M19 problem, or odd
intention. But the point is it is not a problem limited to just one desktop variation. Eventually, we decided to just perform the same
routine and update process and pull the Linux kernel update in via the mintUpdate tool. Same routine, same result. Kernel updated.

As mentioned, there's not really a lot to look at with the MATE desktop that wasn't already present in XFCE. If you had to make a choice
of which desktop environment to install, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of different which one you chose. It's the equivalent of flipping
a dime with heads on both sides. You'll only get the same result anyway. We suspect that it will come down to desktop environment user
loyalty. Believe us when we say there are such beings that exist. Some Linux users take their desktop of choice very serious and outright
refuse to try anything outside of their first preference. That's fine. That's their right.

July 2, 2018 | Linux Mint 19 "Tara" (XFCE) Review (Part 1 of 3)

Tecseek Technology are long time fans of Linux Mint and we have vast experience in its use. Despite this experience, we willingly declare that
the amount of attention we give it here is very unfair. It deserves more attention. That's why we are publishing three Reviews for the latest
release of "Tara", by taking a look at the XFCE, MATE and Cinnamon desktops.

Linux Mint 19 (M19) is code named "Tara". We always have high expectations for Mint releases. But that's a benchmark that the developers have
placed upon themselves. They consistently push out release after release which are of such great quality, we now expect it every time.

M19 is based on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, so M19 was always going to inherit a stable, quality base to work on, which almost guaranteed a path to
satisfaction for its users. But how does the XFCE release fare? Let's take a look.

We installed M19 XFCE to an ext4 partition, which turned out to be a big mistake on our behalf. Why? Read on to find out.

The installation performed just fine. It was completed in an acceptable amount of time. Not the fastest distribution for installation. But still
respectable to say the least.

Aesthetics are very predictable, yet pleasant for M19. The distribution has become famous for its traditional gray and green textures. It is its
identity. We like it. It works well. M19 continues the tradition with a few minor tweaks, so there's not really a lot to talk about in this area.
So we will move on.

Upon fresh reboot, the user is presented with a typical XFCE desktop, which remains clean and uncluttered. There's a simple Home icon, which
takes you straight into Thunar. The desktop panel has Show Desktop, Firefox, Terminal Console and File Manager (Thunar). Just enough to get you
started but not make the user feel too overwhelmed at the options. No doubt users will tweak all this stuff anyway, to their own preferences.

We immediately updated the system with APT inside a terminal console. We performed the usual routine of updating the repositories and followed
with dist-upgrade to ensure we got all the latest packages. Everything appeared to be fine, so we assumed the system to be as up to date as it
could be. But we noticed the update icon on the desktop panel was still active and complaining of available updates to be applied. Clicking on the
icon took us into the mintUpdate tool, where we were faced with a Timeshift dialog box. This wasn't exactly what we asked for, but we continued.
We were offered the chance to create a Snapshot of the system with Timeshift, prior to updating packages. We confirmed Yes but then realized
Timeshift only works with BtrFS partitions. This was where it become clear that installing with ext4 was a mistake and an error of our judgment.
Take note, if you want to take full advantage and see the benefits of Timeshift, then please install M19 on a BtrFS partition. Lesson learned.

Bypassing Timeshift, we saw there was a kernel update to be applied. We updated the outstanding Linux kernel update which brought the running
kernel up to version 4.15.0-23. After it was updated mintUpdate offered us, through another dialog box, a chance to update our repositories
server to a local server for quicker package downloads. This was silly because it should have been offered before updates being downloaded and
applied. Not once they were applied.

This whole dialog box silliness which results in a clicking frenzy that we're not used to when updating systems, combined with the inability
to update the system completely as intended by using terminal console and APT annoyed us to hell. It's all unnecessary and it makes no sense as
to what on Earth is going on. To tell our readers the absolute truth, we're still puzzled by this oddity. We believe in choice and freedom. If
this strange update behavior is intended, then it would appear M19 is forcing the user to perform a specific task a specific way. It's
disappointing and definitely something we would like to see fixed in future updates.

We understand the issue surrounding codec installation is nothing new and a decision that was made some time ago, but we feel the need to bring
it up. There was a time when Linux Mint was known as one of the best distributions for out-of-the-box codec support for audio and video files. No
more. Although there is an automated tool to simplify the whole process, which feels like a legal compromise, it still seems like a step backwards
for the distribution to still have the user perform such a mundane task just to listen to some music or watch a movie.

Software selection is all pretty standard now, with Firefox, LibreOffice et al all making their way into M19.

A fresh installation before any updates gave us Bash version 4.4.19 and Linux kernel 4.15.0-20. Once updated, you'll get 4.15.0-23. Not a major
update, but some small improvements will be present nevertheless.

M19 is based on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. This translates to M19 being one super reliable release and super stable at that. M19 has one of the best
selections of wallpapers of any Linux distribution we've seen. The options on offer are some truly spectacular photography, if that's the kind of
backgrounds you like on your desktop.

M19 XFCE performs excellent, is extremely stable and we were happy with our experience. It truly is one of the best desktop environments if
customization is your cup of tea. We made a few tweaks to our desktop and we were impressed with how good it can be made to look. That green is
just, so, juicy and welcoming. But it not only has the good looks, it has the power to match. We have absolutely no reason to give it anything
other than two thumbs up.

June 29, 2018 | Linux Lite 4.0 Review

There are lots of different Linux distributions available that claim to be "light" on resources with "lite" versions of the included
packages. But do any of them live up to their claim? Actually, not many do. That's not to say they are bad projects or are actually making
false claims. That seems a little harsh. We think it is the way that Linux users interpret the claims. We would all like to believe that we
could have a fully functional Linux operating system using only ~50MB of our typical 8-16GB RAM equipped systems. But we need to be realistic.
And we're sorry, but that is just unrealistic. Any Linux distribution that claims to be able to do this for you is most likely a shell based
distribution or something that resembles Tiny Core Linux. Let's face it, both are unrealistic options for the modern era of consumer desktop
usage. One cannot seriously believe that you could perform all your daily computing tasks inside a shell console without touching a graphical
desktop environment and the mouse at some point. Tiny Core Linux doesn't make false claims. It is tiny, but is also very unusable for any kind
of daily computing. It is intended for development and software engineers working with small embedded devices. That's most certainly not
something we're willing to delve into today. What we are willing to delve into is a Linux distribution which does actually live up to its claims
- Linux Lite 4.0, or LL as we charmingly refer to it as.

When LL dropped to us, we thought it was just another one of those aforementioned distributions which claim to be lightweight, but really
just perform like any other desktop. We were skeptical, but willing to give it some love.

We booted up LL into Live Mode and were genuinely surprised by the professional looking distribution that we were presented. It is based on
Ubuntu, but you would never know unless told beforehand. LL has well and truly etched out its own identity and resembles only itself. We can't
compare it to any other distribution that has come across our screens. It's clean straight lines present a certain amount of elegance that is
absolutely delightful to ogle at.

Immediately impressed by the attention given to aesthetics, we believed it was worthy of an installation on some actual hardware to give it
the honest review that we thought it deserved.

We launched the installation tool, which predictably uses the Ubiquity installer. It has had some tweaks and theme applied and it matches the
rest of the desktop. Sometimes developers spend lots of time and resources on making their projects look great, but then mysteriously ignore the
installation package. It became immediately clear LL was a distribution which didn't follow the path of installer abandonment which is all too
common nowadays, with the developer rush to push distributions out. Attention has been paid to every inch of the desktop. Impressive stuff and a
massive kudos to the developers for their efforts.

Looking beyond appearances, Ubiquity on LL is as streamlined as it always is. Simple and requiring minimal interaction. Post-installation, we
booted into the installed system. At first login the user gets presented with a "Welcome" dialog box. This is very useful, especially for
beginners as it contains lots of useful information, links and also buttons which can perform some tasks for you. A nice addition, but not required.
Thankfully, you can disable this with the checkbox and the system will just boot to regular desktop next time. Welcome dialog boxes are becoming
more common on a lot of distributions these days. Sometimes they can be a little annoying, but if it helps the user find their feet then we guess
it can only be a good thing and should probably be encouraged.

The desktop environment in LL runs XFCE, but it's heavily themed, albeit simplistically. It's a pleasure to use. To be perfectly honest, we had
to delve deep into the desktop settings to actually determine which desktop setup LL was using, as it's so perfectly decked out that it is not
immediately obvious. LL performance is brilliant. Running in Live Mode was great. Running on bare metal is top performance. We didn't do any kind of
deep hardware usage analysis or benchmarks, but a quick peek told us RAM usage its at around 400MB. Considering our Ubuntu 18.04 LTS running GNOME
sits at ~1.0GB RAM usage at idle, we find 400MB pretty impressive and very worthy of recognition for LL claims of being a "lite" distribution.

So what packages make up LL? Well, the main packages are pretty standard and not exactly what we would call lite versions. Firefox is used for
web browsing, GIMP is included for image editing, VLC as the media player and LibreOffice for documents. They are all the usual offerings and rather
bulky packages. If LL was to slim down the distribution further, it could be done by adopting a few replacements like Chromium Browser and Pinta, for
a couple of quick examples. Admittedly, VLC is probably the best choice for media and is very light on system resources. There are office alternatives
and much lighter packages that could be used as alternatives to LibreOffice. But we believe LibreOffice is the best office suite for Linux. Other
alternatives get the job done, but do some strange formatting when using documents that have been pre-drafted using other programs or other formats.
So we always stick to recommending LibreOffice. It can be effectively reduced in installation size by dropping unnecessary packages from the suite as
a compromise.

As elegant and streamlined as the aesthetics of LL are, you could mistake it for a distribution aimed at Linux beginners. It could be identified as
elegant and professional, or kindergarten newbie-like. This couldn't be further from the truth though. The fonts are chunky and large, but not
over-sized and blend in with the theme as a whole. Very nice. We wouldn't change anything. When you dig deeper into LL, it doesn't take long to see
that it is actually built for beginners and advanced users. All users will feel comfortable using it. In the Settings menu there's an extensive
collection of tools and packages for advanced users. There's packages for disk management, firewall and third-party drivers (which worked successfully
for us).

There's also "Lite" specific tools added into LL. There's packages for system info, network shares and software installation which makes it easier
for installing Chromium Browser, Audacity, Caliber, Dropbox, Handbrake, Kodi, PlayOnLinux, WINE, Skype, Spotify, Steam, TeamViewer and Tor Browser.
There's also help to install the Restricted Extras packages. LL has it all covered. In addition to making it easy to install the aforementioned
packages, it's equally as easy to remove them with the same tool. So thoughtful.

There's still more too. There's tools for changing software sources (repositories), system report, user management and also an upgrade tool for
upgrading the system to future versions. We could not test this out because 4.0 is the latest version of LL. So there's nothing to upgrade to, yet.

We particularly like the Lite Tweaks tool. It allows easy setting of common options which can sometimes be tricky to configure. That's if you even
find the right setting at all! The Lite Tweaks tool can be your best friend, if you allow it to be. From the tool you can clean RAM, set the default
browser, change hostname, install updated Linux kernels and remove them too. We tried to install the 4.17.0 kernel. Our attempts failed, after multiple
attempts. Everything else is fine in LL, so we were a little curious as to why this one specific feature was failing. It had to be something obvious
standing in the way. So we did some poking around and it turns out the update repositories for LL were down while we were trying to upgrade the kernel.
Once the repositories came back online, it was sweet sailing from there.

If you find these software installation packages annoying and too simplistic, then Synaptic is also installed. Plus you also have the terminal console
and APT, which we shouldn't have to go over the benefits of.

Inside the System menu we found a NTFS configuration tool, which does little other than enable/disable NTFS support for the system. We're not sure why
this is installed as NTFS is enabled by default. We can't understand who on Earth would go ahead and disable it. Still, it's there if you wake up one
morning and decide to be a NTFS hater.

Continuing, we found a resource usage package which effectively just opens htop inside a terminal console. Neat. But if you prefer a graphical tool,
then you can use the Task Manager for that, which is included as part of the XFCE desktop environment. We prefer htop. But having the option of either is
just another demonstration that LL is not set on one specific type of user. Instead, there are options and packages for everyone.

Finally, there's Timeshift. It's a neat tool which allows you to explore snapshots of the system. You can make use of snapshots with RSYNC or BtrFS. We
didn't find any use for it for a new installation. But over time, we could see this being a handy utility to have at hand.

There's lots to love about LL. It's fresh, neat and elegant. Having the background support of Ubuntu is always a bonus when it comes to package
management and availability. But other than using Ubuntu as a base, there's nothing Ubuntu-like about it. Linux Lite 4.0 is a real treat and much like a
really well behaved and disciplined child who doesn't do anything wrong. It's just so enjoyable to be around and a genuine winner in our books.

June 19, 2018 | 3 Ways to Install DOS Prompt on Linux

There's nothing Tecseek Technology loves more than Linux and the terminal console. To some younger Linux users, you may not already know that
there was a time in computing history when everything was done from a command line prompt. Yes, even on computers from an era way before Linux
came to fruition! Unix and MS-DOS programs were all launched and managed from the command line. There was a time when computers never had
graphical desktop environments. That is why we had the command line. It was central to controlling the entire computer system.

Before Microsoft developed its Windows operating system, its predecessor was called MS-DOS, an acronym for the Microsoft Disk
Operating System. Despite the modern era of fancy graphical desktop environments and compositing window managers, there are still
very legitimate reasons for using a DOS prompt, which is the common alternative to the Linux terminal console, often called just a "shell".

In today's article, we are going to run you through three different ways to install and run a DOS prompt on your Linux system.

1: FreeDOS

Our first option is FreeDOS. To run FreeDOS you need to first install Oracle VM VirtualBox. You might already have it installed. It is a virtual
machine package which allows you to run sandboxed virtual systems inside Linux, without their operations affecting the actual host system - your
desktop. It's a neat option and used very widely across the technology community and in the information technology industry, for a wide range of
purposes. Please refer to third-party tutorials if you are unfamiliar with how to install Oracle VM VirtualBox. But from this point on, we assume
you have it installed.

Once you have opened up VirtualBox, you need to create a new DOS virtual machine. Once you have created the new virtual machine, you need to head
to the FreeDOS website which can be found at freedos.org. It is there you can download FreeDOS. Simply download the CD-ROM Standard Installer
package. This will be used to install FreeDOS into your virtual machine.

Once the download is complete, you now need to fire up the virtual machine and select the FreeDOS package that you just downloaded and boot into
the installer. It's important to note that when installing FreeDOS inside a virtual machine using VirtualBox you may very well run the
possibility of hitting a vital error upon booting the installation media. We did. It is an unexplainable infinite error loop. We performed a quick
online search on the problem and quickly found that it's a common problem with installing FreeDOS. Especially when installing it inside VirtualBox.
Fear not, the workaround is very simple. You just need to hit TAB upon the boot prompt and enter "raw" without the quote marks at the end of the boot
parameters. Hit ENTER and the FreeDOS installation will commence as normal.

The installation requires only minimal user interaction and will be complete in less than two minutes. Then, reboot the virtual machine and you
now have FreeDOS installed.

2: DOSBox

If you find FreeDOS is too fiddly or much too complicated for you, then thankfully installing DOSBox is so much easier. Besides, most mainstream
Linux distributions should have DOSBox available in their software repositories. For Ubuntu, this is as simple as running the following command:

$ sudo apt install dosbox

The installation of DOSBox should now commence. Once complete, you can launch it by running the following command:

$ dosbox

The best thing about DOSBox is it is very configurable by the user. You will find its configuration file in your ~/.dosbox directory, under the file
name:

dosbox-[version].conf

Once you have made the necessary changes to your configuration file to suit your needs, you can re-launch DOSBox for the changes to take effect. If
you launch DOSBox from the terminal you will probably see lots of annoying verbose output. This is normal. If you want to suppress it, you can launch it
by using the following command instead:

$ dosbox &>/dev/null

3: WINE CMD

Our third and final method if installing the DOS prompt onto Linux is also very easy. It's actually included with the WINE packages. So once you
install WINE on your system, WINE CMD also becomes available.

First let's install WINE, by running the following command on Ubuntu:

$ sudo apt install wine

Once WINE has completed installation on your system, it's always a good idea to make some quick configuration changes to suit your requirements. This
is easily done by running the following command:

$ winecfg

Once you have configured WINE, you can now launch the WINE CMD prompt by running the following command:

$ wine cmd

You are now running the CMD prompt provided by the WINE package.

You have three different options to choose from of how to install a DOS prompt on your Linux system. Microsoft introduced the DOS prompt as part of the
MS-DOS operating system back in 1981. In the years that followed, many other computer companies were to adopt DOS-type operating systems, including IBM,
Apple, Commodore and Amiga. They all used the familiar DOS prompt for user interaction, many of them licensed from Microsoft.

Today, the reliance on the DOS prompt may no longer be of absolute necessity, but there's still keen interest in DOS and that familiar little easy-to-use
prompt which provides so many happy memories for computer veterans and hobbyists alike. In an ever-increasing complex digital world, sometimes its
simplicity is nice to still have around.

June 13, 2018 | Microsoft Acquisition of GitHub is Not the End of Open-Source Development

On June 4, 2018, the official announcement was made by Microsoft that it had acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion. Both companies posted
press releases on their respective websites, making the announcement.

In the weeks leading up to the official announcement there was market talk on the potential acquisition.

Following the acquisition announcement, developers on the internet went into a frenzy of panic and in some cases, anger. Anger was
expressed at both GitHub and Microsoft. The former was accused of betraying software developers and the open-source movement. While
the latter was accused of attempting to shut out open-source software development through the acquisition. A claim proving to be
absolutely unfounded and ridiculous.

In comments made by GitHub and Microsoft representatives on the deal, both have not only recognized the concerns expressed by
developers, rather it was pre-empted by Microsoft.

By pre-empting the uncomfortable feelings some developers would have about the deal, it's a clear demonstration that Microsoft has good
intentions for GitHub and also demonstrates they are very well connected and understanding of not only their current user base, but also
the user base they would be inheriting.

Some developers have persisted with their unfounded discontent and have migrated their source code that was previously held on GitHub,
to alternative services - GitLab being a popular choice. GitLab have reported massive levels of source code migration onto their service,
since.

Tecseek Technology believes the discontent to be massively overstated and unfounded. They have made the commitment to leave GitHub as an
open platform which will always support free and open-source software development, while reminding everyone of Microsoft's continued
contributions they have already made and continue to make to open-source software development projects across the world.

We have reached out to GitHub and GitLab for comment.

Official Press Release - Microsoft

REDMOND, Wash. - June 4, 2018 - Microsoft Corp. on Monday announced it has reached an agreement to acquire GitHub, the world's leading
software development platform where more than 28 million developers learn, share and collaborate to create the future. Together, the two
companies will empower developers to achieve more at every stage of the development lifecycle, accelerate enterprise use of GitHub, and
bring Microsoft's developer tools and services to new audiences.

"Microsoft is a developer-first company, and by joining forces with GitHub we strengthen our commitment to developer freedom, openness
and innovation," said Satya Nadella, CEO, Microsoft. "We recognize the community responsibility we take on with this agreement and will do
our best work to empower every developer to build, innovate and solve the world's most pressing challenges."

Under the terms of the agreement, Microsoft will acquire GitHub for $7.5 billion in Microsoft stock. Subject to customary closing
conditions and completion of regulatory review, the acquisition is expected to close by the end of the calendar year.

GitHub will retain its developer-first ethos and will operate independently to provide an open platform for all developers in all
industries. Developers will continue to be able to use the programming languages, tools and operating systems of their choice for their
projects - and will still be able to deploy their code to any operating system, any cloud and any device.

Microsoft Corporate Vice President Nat Friedman, founder of Xamarin and an open source veteran, will assume the role of GitHub CEO.
GitHub's current CEO, Chris Wanstrath, will become a Microsoft technical fellow, reporting to Executive Vice President Scott Guthrie, to
work on strategic software initiatives.

"I'm extremely proud of what GitHub and our community have accomplished over the past decade, and I can't wait to see what lies ahead.
The future of software development is bright, and I'm thrilled to be joining forces with Microsoft to help make it a reality," Wanstrath
said. "Their focus on developers lines up perfectly with our own, and their scale, tools and global cloud will play a huge role in making
GitHub even more valuable for developers everywhere."

Today, every company is becoming a software company and developers are at the center of digital transformation; they drive business
processes and functions across organizations from customer service and HR to marketing and IT. And the choices these developers make will
increasingly determine value creation and growth across every industry. GitHub is home for modern developers and the world's most popular
destination for open source projects and software innovation. The platform hosts a growing network of developers in nearly every country
representing more than 1.5 million companies across healthcare, manufacturing, technology, financial services, retail and more.

Upon closing, Microsoft expects GitHub's financials to be reported as part of the Intelligent Cloud segment. Microsoft expects the
acquisition will be accretive to operating income in fiscal year 2020 on a non-GAAP basis, and to have minimal dilution of less than 1
percent to earnings per share in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 on a non-GAAP basis, based on the expected close time frame. Non-GAAP excludes
expected impact of purchase accounting adjustments, as well as integration and transaction-related expenses. An incremental share buyback,
beyond Microsoft's recent historical quarterly pace, is expected to offset stock consideration paid within six months after closing.
Microsoft will use a portion of the remaining ~$30 billion of its current share repurchase authorization for the purchase.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP is acting as legal advisor to Microsoft. Morgan Stanley is acting as exclusive financial advisor to
GitHub, while Fenwick & West LLP is acting as its legal advisor.

June 8, 2018 | BunsenLabs Linux (Helium) Review

When you're in a privileged position to be able to sit around among technology of all types, makes and models, hardware and software,
and in software the myriad of available Linux distributions, it's always a pleasure to be able to write about the experience and present
our thoughts with our readers. We never take it for granted. But it's not always fun and games and not all software reviews end well. We
always try and bring our readers the best ones that do make the cut. The ones that don't, we simply don't waste our time by giving them
the publicity they just don't deserve, frankly. We also do not want to waste the time of our readers by having them sit through what
would result in a meaningless rant, if we were to publish.

When BunsenLabs Linux (BL) was dropped into the office, we were concerned that it might just be another amateur release of Linux that
won't make the cut. We didn't really take it serious and was ready to dump it in the trash can before we even gave it a second thought.
The most obvious reason we quickly jumped to this assumption is because it carried a branding we had not previously recognized. This may
seem a little unfair, initially. But as we get a lot of 'unknown' distributions roll through the labs, we have to draw a limit somewhere
as we only have finite resources and it would be reckless to expect us to be able to test absolutely all of them. Sometimes, just
sometimes, a distribution will come along and put us back in our place. It serves as a nice reminder that there are some genuine
development efforts still happening out there in the Linux ecosystem, which to be honest is a little flooded of releases. Still, we'd
rather it be flooded than become a drought. So we encourage the flood.

Where did BL come from? It is a community developed distribution which evolved from the now defunct CrunchBang Linux and is based on
Debian 9 (Stretch). The latest release was announced in April 2018, under the release name of "Helium". We booted into BL not really
knowing what to expect. It is clear from the installation that it is Debian-based. The installation was pretty standard Debian-esque -
basic, fast and minimal effort required to get the system installed.

Once installed, we rebooted to be presented with a really cool looking desktop. It runs on Linux kernel 4.9.0.6 and Bash 4.4.12 for
the default shell. Package management is handling by APT 1.4.8, as expected, being a distribution based on the Debian base. This is a
distribution running on top of the Openbox window manager. The first thing you notice is the system information on the right-side of the
screen. Below that is some desktop keyboard shortcuts hints, for assistance. The desktop is made up of Openbox, a custom top panel and
Conky. The latter package is used to display the system information text on the desktop. Conky is a funky kind of tweak tool that Linux
users like to utilize to customize their system. Some users spend an incredible amount of time coding their Conky configuration in Lua,
and the level of attention paid to the code to produce their desired results is often worthy of much respect.

We will make a couple of points and then attempt to clarify each one of them in a bit more detail, based on our experience with BL.
Opting for Openbox is cool. The menu that comes shipped with BL is terrible. Adding Conky is cool. It's implementation is pretty good,
but needs a little attention and polish. The entire design concept is clear, but the developers have fallen short to deliver on their
intention, we believe. But bare with us, it gets better.

Let's touch on Openbox first - It's a lightweight window manager which can be used inside a graphical environment or solely as a
window manager. BL have opted to just stick with the latter choice. It's a good decision as it keeps the desktop light on baggage. The
tricky part of using Openbox as a sole window manager which also serves as the desktop environment for the user is having a suitable
desktop application menu to complement it. This is the biggest failure of BL. When you right-click on the desktop and bring up the menu,
it displays quite possibly one of the ugliest, messiest and disorganized menus we have had the displeasure of focusing our eyes on. It's
that bad, it burned our retinas. How it is written, laid out and organized (if you can call it that) is just all terrible. There's
nothing to complement. In a somewhat half-hearted attempt to try and throw a positive spin into the works, we will say that among the
mess, we think we can see what developers were aiming for. Necessary packages are installed and some extras are present too. For the
packages that are not included out-of-the-box, there are menu entries to assist in installing them. We tested a couple of these and they
appear to symlink to pre-written scripts which bring up a terminal console and prompt APT to install the required package(s), with the
user's consent. Quite neat and effective actually. It's a great idea, it just requires better implementation inside the menu.

We don't want to harp on about how bad the menu is any further as we think you get the point. But we think that it was at this stage
we started to realize this was a Linux distribution for the advanced user. You know, those type who are not afraid to get their hands
dirty inside Emacs, hacking configuration files. Let's repeat that and make it very clear - BunsenLabs Linux is NOT a Linux distribution
for beginners. Period.

We dug deep into the menu and tried to work out its structure. We brought the configuration file up in the included BL Text Editor in
an effort to hack and chop away at the file to bring it to a point it could all make sense and have some kind of logical layout and
structure. The more we looked inside and the deeper we dug, the more we began to conclude that it would be best if it were just rewritten.
Well, a majority of it anyway. That is what we did. We removed almost everything, opting to reduce our menu to just seven entries. This
included Run Program, Web Browser, File Manager, Text Editor, Terminal, Lock Screen and Exit. For us, that was enough. Openbox and its
menu is best when kept minimal. If we find we need something at a later date, it's easy enough to add to the menu's configuration file.

Now that the application menu has been taken care of, it was time to pay some attention to Conky. We like Conky, but we wanted to
simplify it and to just clean things up a little. We wanted it to be a little more informative, yet simplified. We opened up the
configuration file in BL Text Editor. Let the hacking begin!

We removed the keyboard shortcuts section completely as we felt it was unnecessary for us. We also think it just takes up too much
screen real estate without serving any real purpose. We changed the System Info text to display the distribution name of "BunsenLabs
Linux" instead. We also added some display text to display the current Linux kernel installed, date and time and fixed some of the
hardware feedback output. Specifically, we altered the CPU core output so all cores were displayed rather than just the average used
across all cores.

Our hacks for Conky were relatively simple, yet effective. And it makes a huge difference to the overall desktop aesthetics when
everything is much more clean and streamlined.

So, we need a final result. A conclusion.

BL is awesome. To come to the conclusion of awesomeness is to be prepared to hack away at it, post-installation. Once you do, it's
a fine performing desktop and truly one of the most beautiful and powerful Linux operating systems we've used. We fell in love with it.
The more time we spent staring at the final results, the more we fell in love. We felt like we were having an affair with another Linux
distribution. Sure, the developers have a lot of work to do to polish things up a bit for future releases. But if you're not afraid to
step up and do the work the old fashioned way with a bit of hacking, then you will be greatly rewarded by a cool, awesome, beautiful and
gorgeous desktop which is sure to turn heads in the office from those walking by.

If you're an advanced user who likes their desktop to look and feel good, then this is the distribution for you. If you're a beginner
or office user who is looking for something that just works out-of-the-box, this is most definitely not the distribution you should be
considering. BL commands your attention. When you're finished with it, you will be the one doing the commanding. We can't express enough
how rewarding it is.

Some Linux veterans will argue that modern Linux desktops have gone soft by trying to make life easier for the user, by trying to do
everything for them. Developers and early adopters of Linux will remember a time when it was really up to the user to get their hands
dirty and hack their systems to get things just right. In many cases, hacking was required to get things to just work! I guess by
comparison you could say modern Linux desktops have made life much easier, but they are much less configurable than they used to be.
That is at least true for mainstream distributions which choose to run mainstream desktop environments. BunsenLabs Linux is a breath of
fresh air and a nice reminder that the desktop is yours, therefore it must be owned by you. It makes you work for it, but the
satisfaction when complete is the reward. We're still basking in the glow.

June 4, 2018 | OpenSUSE Leap 15 Review

It's like Christmas time at Tecseek Technology when we are presented with new releases of the big three Linux distributions - Ubuntu,
Fedora and OpenSUSE.

First, we should probably explain the version number change, just to help clear up any possible confusion. The previous version of
Leap was 42.3, which we reviewed here at Tecseek Technology. The version number for this release is 15. Confused? Initially, so were we.
Ultimately it was a decision made by the OpenSUSE Board with an aim to match Leap with its enterprise-grade counterpart, which is
precisely where OpenSUSE pulls its packages from. Some versions of packages get updated to more recent versions, but this is only done
where it is deemed necessary. There's plenty of discussion online about the decision to change version numbers (again), some of them
extremely lengthy and running into multiples of hundreds of responses. We don't want to waste too much space here going into a rant about
it. We just want to boot it up and see what it offers. Let's take a look at the distribution itself, see how it performs and see how it
stacks up against the latest versions of Ubuntu and Fedora.

Our Ubuntu testing was performed on a pretty standard hardware configuration. We threw quite a bit at Fedora, which really shined once
we dumped it into a quad SSD RAID0 configuration. We thought we would try OpenSUSE Leap 15 in a similar kind of RAID0 setup. We tried it
on a dual SSD RAID0 configuration, without success. There was no way could we figure out how to configure the partition tool included
with the Leap installer to actually commence installation on our RAID0 setup. We had the setup right, the drives were formatted,
partitioned and ready to go. But nope, we had no luck. After too many attempts, we simply took a step backward and opted to install it on
a single SSD setup instead. We skipped any further RAID attempts and Leap 15 installed flawlessly. It must be noted that there didn't
appear to be any actual problem or bugs anywhere in the partition tool or the installer. Rather, Leap 15 seems extremely fussy on how its
partitions are configured. If everything is not set just right and according to what Leap 15 believes the perfect setup should be, it
chucks a tantrum and throws up warning box after warning box. In the end, we just got too annoyed and the result was our labs team
resorting to just keeping things simple. I guess sometimes KISS really is the best philosophy to follow. Moving on.

Once installed, we were blessed with the always beautiful KDE Plasma 5 desktop. It's a beautiful desktop and if you are a real fan of
KDE, then OpenSUSE will most likely be your first choice of distribution as they certainly know how to ship a KDE equipped desktop. It is
just perfect and gorgeous to look at, from all angles.

We were testing Leap 15 with a dual display configuration with both displays being recognized and displaying resolutions correctly,
without any tinkering with display settings required. The biggest gripe we have with KDE is the Kicker Application Menu. It's become too
bloated, confusing and just has way too many levels before you actually get to the application you want. And that's even if you find the
right application in the right category after you finish navigating through its multiple levels of sub-menus. It's unnecessary and a
complete waste of our time. The search function is brilliant and makes it so easy to simply enter the application that you want, but we
still believe that any application menu should remain simple, have minimal layers and be easy to find the right application in no more
than a couple of seconds. On a busy day at the office, the last thing you want to have to worry about is trying to remember which menu and
sub-menu(s) you last saw that obscure, yet necessary application that you need to boot up. We advocate to return to KISS standards, again.
So that's what we done. We hacked away at some settings. We removed the favorites icons on the side of the menu which we found unnecessary
as we prefer to have favorites placed on the Plasma desktop panel instead. We also enabled the option to Flatten menu to a single level.
This rids the menu of all its sub-menu entries in favor of keeping things down to just two levels, maximum. We also disabled the Show
recent applications and documents options, which reduces that extra clutter we feel is a little bit useless. These small changes result in
a very minimal, clean and simplified application menu which we would prefer to see rolled-out as default in future Plasma iterations.
However, we accept the very high probability that this is not going to happen in a mainstream KDE release such as OpenSUSE Leap. We must
admit though, we remain glad that the developers make it so damn easy to configure almost every aspect of the desktop's functions and
appearance that you can think of.

Upon booting up a terminal console and running zypper to update the system, we were a little surprised to see ~150MB of updates
available. Our copy of Leap 15 arrived one day after the official release date, so to see this high amount of updates so shortly after
shipping, was a surprise. Nevertheless, we updated the system which included a Linux kernel update too, which brought the current running
kernel up to 4.12.14. It is a little behind that of Ubuntu and Fedora, staying in tradition with their usual patterns, but OpenSUSE is
closer to its enterprise counterpart than the other two desktop offerings are. Still, it's stable and there are no outstanding issues
despite the slightly older kernel. So it's not a big problem.

If there's one thing that separates OpenSUSE from the other two mainstream distributions, it's the size of the installation ISO. Leap
15 comes in at the heavier end of the scale, @ ~4.7GB. While the latter distributions come in @ ~1.0-1.5GB. While neither choice is a real
problem, it is obvious from the very moment you boot up Leap 15 that it is aimed to have everything ready for you, post-installation. We
love the fact you get a choice to install KDE Plasma, GNOME or a Server instance, during installation. We equally love the software
selection and believe some of its inclusions should be included in more distributions. But we also have some reservations about the
necessity of others. Regular readers of Tecseek Technology will know we're always ranting on about how GIMP should be included. Well
thankfully, Leap 15 keeps it right where it belongs. Nice to see. Fist pump in the air for that one fellas.

There is literally software included for everything. Other inclusions are KDE Marble, an alternative to Google Earth which is fantastic
for research and reference. It features a range of globe views including classic map, OpenStreet, a range of satellite views and historical
maps too. And if Earth isn't enough for you, you can switch views and look up instead, at the Moon. There's only one simple viewing option
for viewing the Moon. But all of the rendering of the Moon's surface and reference information available is all based on scientific and
astronomical data, so it could prove to be a vital resource for the academic nerds.

Taking a look at other software applications, we see a bunch of tools to complement GIMP. There's digiKam, Gwenview and Hugin for
creating panoramic images from your digital photos. Vector based graphics packages include only LibreOffice Draw. There's also a few extras
for scanning and viewing PDF files and other documents. Internet applications include Firefox and Kmail as your default offerings.

We have to admit, when Ubuntu 18.04 LTS dropped onto our desk, we were so impressed that we honestly didn't believe that any Linux
distribution due to be released in 2018 could match its impressive performance. We don't usually like to make too many comparisons between
distributions, as we feel each individual distribution should be tried, tested and judged on their own merit. But 18.04 LTS was so impressive,
we believe that it set a new industry benchmark for quality of a Linux distribution. Most distributions are close to the same standard, but
Ubuntu does seem to have the upper hand. However, that was until Leap 15 came along. As was predictable, it is free of bugs, has some of the
finest polish on its aesthetics we've seen and is an absolute delight to become acquainted with.

To separate Ubuntu 18.04 LTS and OpenSUSE Leap 15 and declare one 'better' than the other would be extremely unfair. So we're not going to
do it. Instead, we would say they're both on the same level and sitting on the high perch looking down at other distributions, wondering how
long it will take other Linux distributions to catch up and join the new standard of the Linux desktop operating system. Because it's come a
long way. We are excited for the future and can't wait to see how Ubuntu and OpenSUSE top these quality releases in their future revisions.
Because it's going to be difficult.

May 22, 2018 | Fedora 28 Review

There seems to have been very little media coverage surrounding the development and release of Fedora 28 (F28). We're not exactly sure
why, but it could be because F28 has been overshadowed by the hugely popular release and hype surrounding Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. The attention
on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS is well deserved, but F28 equally deserves the same level of attention. At least that's what Tecseek Technology
believe.

Now, we say there's not much to talk about with F28 and we stand by this rather narrow assessment. During our testing, we experienced
numerous problems with Anaconda, the system's graphical installation tool. On repeated attempts, we experienced random freezing, which we
were unable to debug to a specific problem. We were able to reproduce the problem upon fresh installation attempts, multiple times.
However, it seemed to happen at random stages of the installation process and not really reflective of a specific problem that left us
with a choice to change our configuration settings or attempt to bypass the buggy stage. Instead, we were left baffled as to it's cause
and relied on luck, really. We didn't keep record of the number of times we attempted our installation. But we can tell you, we find it
unacceptable that F28 was pushed out in this state. Clearly there is a problem somewhere and this should have been noticed and fixed
before it went gold. Eventually, we were able to get an installation complete and had a F28 GNOME desktop presented on screen, ready.

We found F28 to be quite sluggish. There's not really any reason for it to be, as it is quite a bare bones distribution out-of-the-box.
We did get much better performance by logging out of the default Wayland session and changing to X display server. There's also the GNOME
Classic session available, which is also much snappier than Wayland. One specific feature that we pointed out the benefits of with Ubuntu
18.04 LTS was its continued use of X display server. We recommend you stick to X with F28 too. Wayland is just too slow and creates
unnecessary drag on your system's response frame rates. It creates for a horrible experience and one that can be avoided.

Dissatisfied with the performance, we wanted to see what else we could do to tweak the system and attempt to get things running a bit
smoother. Specifically, the desktop frame rate lag annoyed us so we wanted to investigate further to find out what the heck was really
causing it. Here's a spoiler; we held back publication of this Review awaiting results back from further testing. This Review now reflects
all extended test results.

Someone in the office initiated on a hunch, that installing into a RAID0 configuration would resolve the problem. That hunch was taken
literally and we reinstalled F28 to a two-disk RAID0 configuration. To our dismay, it worked! RAID0 and running F28 using X display
manager, combined with the latest kernel update literally eliminated all performance lag. Still not satisfied, we went a little more
hardcore. We reinstalled it again, this time opting for a four-disk SSD RAID0 configuration. This time, we left it running under Wayland and
with no further kernel updates, it still worked. We had resolved our performance and lag problems. It's all very strange because although
using RAID0 will always give you some added performance benefits, these benefits will usually only ever be beneficial and noticeable when
the hard disk are being utilized. The only time this would occur is if the system was low on RAM allocation, it would result in the SWAP
space being thrashed. The system was not low on RAM and the hard disks were not being thrashed, according to both hardware and software
disk usage monitors. It's all very strange to us and to be honest with you, we have no real technical explanation which can explain it
logically. We do not suspect this to be something that Red Hat/Fedora Developers have missed. Rather one of those simple technical quirks
that goes down in the records as 'just weird'.

The default setup includes the 4.16.3 Linux kernel and a GNOME 3.28.2 desktop environment. We noticed within days of it going gold there
was a kernel update available. In fact, as we go to press there has been a couple of kernel updates pushed out already, giving us a system
running Linux 4.16.8. GNOME has not changed and most major software has remained the same, with the exception of Firefox which has been
updated to version 60.0. The GNOME desktop in F28 has replaced Shotwell with Photos, for image management. This is a good decision as we
never liked Shotwell anyway. Nautilus is the graphical file manager included in GNOME and is as boring as ever. It gets the job done, but
we always advocate that Linux users should learn to rely on the console terminal more for file management. For more complex tasks, you can
break out Midnight Commander, or mc, as the package is known by. The Software application is a bit horrible. We find it quite cumbersome
and unnecessarily bloated. Again, it's just no match for the terminal console and we suggest you stick to using dnf for software
management. It's much quicker.

We have tried to find something in F28 to get excited about. But we just can't. Other technology sites seemed to have found a lot of
interest in something called Usage. From what we can see, Usage is effectively just another built-in graphical system monitoring package.
We searched our system for this supposedly fantastic tool, but found nothing. At first we couldn't make sense of why our system didn't
have it installed. We proceeded to search the available packages and quickly discovered that it is not installed by default. We went ahead
and installed it, out of interest. We were left disappointed by it. We will not point fingers at the specific publications which touted how
brilliant this package is, but we will say that it was more than just one publication. We're not sure what drugs their lab's team members
were taking, but there's a reason that Fedora have not inluded this package by default. It adds nothing to the system that isn't already
available. There's plenty of this type of software already out there. In fact, there's already an included graphical task manager and
system monitor, ironically, simply called System Monitor. And it does a much better job than Usage anyway. Graphical system monitoring
packages might be a nice addition to any F28 system, but we still prefer console tools for system monitoring, such as htop or glances. For
disk usage monitoring, we recommend iotop. We might be taking the old fashioned route here by using and recommending console based tools,
but we believe in the right tool for the job is always the best route. Usage is not worth the bother of installation. It's plain, useless
and uninformative.

There's also great interest by software developers with the new modular repository. At the time of testing, we were stripped of resources
here in the office and under pressure of time constraints. Therefore, we were unable to really test out this new feature. Developers seem
excited about it. Essentially, the modular repository allows the user to run an alternative version of a particular package whilst the rest
of the system is up-to-date and running the very latest available packages. It sounds interesting and extremely useful for developers. The
more we read about it, the more we became disappointed that we didn't have the time to dig deeper into this feature.

Aside from some added value for developers, we feel there's not much else to present. As always, it's best to add the RPM Fusion
repositories, as they've been updated to accommodate F28. Or if you prefer, you can just stick with the free and open-source offerings. We
would really love to be presenting you an awesome review which tells you that F28 is great and well worth taking a look at. It just isn't
happening this time around. We imagine F28 as a boring statue in the museum corner that everyone takes a quick glance and then continues walking
simply because there's nothing worth stopping for. If you're looking for an upgrade for your Linux computer, we recommend you opt for Ubuntu
18.04 LTS instead. If you're a die hard Fedora Linux fan, then by all means go for F28 because you probably have the experience to deal with any
problems you will encounter and also make the necessary changes to make it an exciting system. It has potential, but needs lots of work. We are
giving this one a miss. If you really want to avoid Ubuntu (for whatever reason), then try another Linux distribution for a year or more and
then perhaps revisit Fedora when 29 comes knocking.

April 28, 2018 | Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (Bionic Beaver) Review

At Tecseek Technology, we have been using Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (Bionic Beaver) for several weeks, relying on development builds.
Although this is not recommended for mission critical systems, we had plans in place to avoid any loss of data as a result of
something going awry. Yet we are glad to say that it has not been required that we roll-out our emergency recovery plans we had set
aside, as this latest Ubuntu release has been rock solid stable for us for the duration of the final stages of development.

We started testing 18.04 early so that it had a chance to prove itself against what we consider high expectations of what
produces a good Linux distribution. We have high standards. Probably some would deem them too high. But we believe that by having
high standards, it is providing a better benchmark to measure against which will ultimately help to determine the good distributions
from the bad and the plain old boring ones. However, as you read on you will soon find out that 18.04 exceeded our standards, with
ease.

We are running two systems with 18.04 physically installed. Sometimes we rely on virtual machines for our testing, but this time
around we have returned to doing things properly and keeping things more traditional by relying on actual computer hardware. We use
Intel CPU chips on both systems while AMD and Intel handle the graphics. One system is connected to the network by ethernet and
utilizing a VPN. The other system connects to the same network by wireless connectivity and also utilizes the same VPN service, but
a different server location.

18.04 is a Long Term Support release. So you are guaranteed updates from the Main repository right through until April 2023 - 5
years from the date of release - for Desktop, Server and Core versions. While other official derivatives get a shorter support life
of only 3 years. Ubuntu Studio only gets 9 months of support, for some strange reason.

We are using the XFCE desktop on our main system which is running Xubuntu. Additionally, we are running vanilla Ubuntu which uses
the default GNOME desktop, on our laptop. We can safely report to our readers that both releases work superbly. We chose XFCE as our
main desktop of choice because we wanted something a bit more customizable and an environment that sticks to traditional desktop
usage principles. This is one of the greatest strengths of XFCE. Whilst our Lenovo laptop has some fancy extra buttons and
functions, we chose the vanilla version of Ubuntu and GNOME to ensure that we have maximum support for Secure Boot and all our nice
little extras. The laptop originally had Windows 10 pre-installed, but we ditched it in favor of Ubuntu. Once we entered the UEFI/BIOS
and disabled Secure Boot, we were able to install Ubuntu without any problems. Post-installation and upon reboot, we found everything
worked as intended. This included bluetooth, Wi-Fi and all our extra function keys.

When Secure Boot was first implemented, the free software and Linux development community threw their arms up in a state of panic
and were quickly concluding that Linux would lose out to Microsoft Windows 10 on systems where the latter was pre-installed. Although
the concern is completely justified, in our experience Secure Boot poses no realistic problem anymore once it is disabled. There are
various implementations, hacks and workarounds that have been developed by the Linux development community which now properly cater
for Secure Boot and are doing their job just fine. There is now suitable compatibility for Secure Boot from Ubuntu, OpenSUSE and
commercial Linux company, Red Hat, which extend their compatibility to their community developed projects of CentOS and Fedora.

If you put the two desktop versions we use side-by-side, XFCE remains the snappiest of the two. But we don't take anything away
from GNOME as to be fair, it is running on a system with slightly lower specifications than our XFCE system. XFCE is running on an
effective 8 cores while GNOME is running off just 2 cores. The total amount of RAM installed also plays a major part in performance.
The XFCE system has an extra 2GB on top of the GNOME system, which will give XFCE an undisputed advantage. So our comparison is to be
taken as a guide only, rather than any serious technical comparison or benchmark.

If anyone had actually been taking notice, they would have realized that the official 18.04 package repositories were updated the
night before official release date. We updated our systems the night before and received some final updates, which included a kernel
update. Then we attempted another update the next day, once it had officially been released yet APT reported that all packages were
up to date.

Technically speaking, 18.04 comes with Linux kernel 4.15.0-20. Considering the official latest stable kernel available from
kernel.org sits at 4.16.5, we remain pretty happy with the version included with 18.04. Actually, considering this is a LTS release,
it's a rather aggressive approach compared to traditional inclusions of the Linux kernel in releases with extended support. If you're
really keen, you can always roll out the latest Ubuntu Mainline kernel anyway. Or any custom kernels that you might prefer to
install.

We don't feel the need to delve too deeply in what versions of software are included. Instead, we prefer to focus on how the
desktop as a whole performs. One word is all that is required to summarize our experience - Excellent. We are extremely happy with the
stability of this release. Both the XFCE and GNOME desktops perform well and look great. The default wallpapers are a little bit of a
let down, but there is plenty of beautiful options to choose from in the desktop settings if you want to change it. We changed them.
We also made a small change to the window buttons by bringing them back to the left. But that's up to you what you prefer. While
changing this on XFCE is as simple as heading into the Settings Manager, it is a little more tricky on GNOME and required us to jump
into APT and install the GNOME Tweak Tool. Although this is not difficult to do, we believe a simple tweak like this should be
simplified for GNOME users. But that is just getting picky. We also made another small tweak and changed the window move button to
ALT, instead of Super. We believe this change is a no-brainer and the ALT key should be default for moving windows with the mouse and
not Super.

Our couple of small critiques aside, the Bionic Beaver is one heck of a release. It still runs X display server as default, with
Wayland provided as an option at login. We're not too sure where Wayland development is at, but to be frank, we don't care. We stick
to X on every Linux distribution that gets dropped onto our desk, regardless. We have experienced too many stability problems with
Wayland so far and just see no reason to pursue trying it any further. To be honest, we're not really sure why Ubuntu Developers
seem so insistent on pursuing its development, as it continues to pose problems and continues to be pushed back and delayed all the
time. So we're glad that X display manager is still used as default. According to the official Release Notes provided with the arrival
of 18.04, the included version of Wayland is still a Technical Preview. Our advice, steer clear of it and don't even bother. Just
forget that it's even there. We advocate that if there is nothing wrong with X display server (which there is not), then why go
developing any form of replacement that offers nothing that can't be done already with X. So stick with X, please.

LibreOffice is included, obviously. It's a nice update too, with the inclusion of version 6.0.3.2. Firefox Quantum is the latest
version at 59.0.2. There's plenty of updates included in Ubuntu Server, but we didn't touch that variant this time and have no
intention to. But reading through the Release Notes we can see some nice updates to Apache, Nginx and PHP. All useful for system
administrators intending to roll out the 18.04 update on a web server. These would be welcome.

This is a release of Ubuntu that we can really appreciate. Sometimes Long Term Support releases can be a little uninspiring and
you're made to feel like you need to upgrade anyway. But this time it feels different. It actually has the cool factor attached to it.
It actually makes Ubuntu a cool Linux distribution, again. Powerful, if you will. For a while, the Ubuntu brand name was heading on a
path that we feared it could never return. A path which resembled an old man saying, 'I'm old, comfortable and don't feel the need to
be cool anymore'. Tecseek Technology believes that in the world of Linux, that's nonsense. Thankfully, Ubuntu has jumped off that path
and onto a new path with a more positive future.

With the release of 18.04 it seems everyone is again talking about Linux and everyone wants to install Ubuntu. We believe it's a
good thing. If you want to install Linux, then you must install Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (Bionic Beaver). You just have to!

February 14, 2018 | Setting Up a Smart Home Theater Network in Your Home

So, you've gone out and bought yourself a new large screen TV. While you were at the store, you decided to splurge out and also
purchase a new Windows 10 laptop. Sure, your new TV might have been sold to you as a "Smart TV", but in our experience, these
over-hyped "smart" units are only as smart as the media that you feed into them.

For modern consumer media consumption, there's no denying that digital wins over having to plug in old fashioned DVD players and
other external set-top units. Realistically, everything can now be done from your new laptop by using the new smart TV as an extended
display. There's no real need to have all those ugly external units sitting beneath the TV when that wasted space could be better
reserved for placing that ugly vase that your Nana passed down to you.

We're going to really modernize the way you watch and listen to your digital media. We make the basic assumption that you already
have your video and audio files on your hard drive.

To get started, we simply need to install some basic media player software on the Windows 10 laptop. For video files, we're going
to install SMPlayer. For audio files, we recommend foobar2000. Additionally, we also install Spotify. If you do not use Spotify, then
you can skip its installation. The problem we continuously see with modern smart TV sets is the format support for files is always
much too limited. Some recent models still do not support H265. We have also experienced some problems with playing older DivX files
on brand new units. Our choice of software is deliberate for the simple fact that between SMPlayer and foobar2000, you'll find that
you will be able to watch and play any file format that you throw at them.

Once you have installed the software on your laptop, we need to connect it to the smart TV with a HDMI cable. This is all that is
required as HDMI handles both the audio and video signal of the data transmission. Some HDMI cables even support ethernet connectivity
inside them. But that's not relevant to this project. Once connected, select the HDMI source on the TV and you should now be able to
see an extended screen which is generated from the laptop. Initially, you will still need to control it using the laptop, but now you
are able to listen to all your favorite music and watch all your favorite movies through your new smart TV, powered by the laptop.

Allowing the laptop to handle the processing power of media delivery through the smart TV is much better. Specifically, for video
files. You will achieve greater picture clarity, sharper and smoother video playback than if you were to play it directly through the
smart TV. This is simply because laptops and computers have much better and much more capable processing hardware. The decoding
hardware included in smart TV units is sometimes outdated at the time of purchase and the actual parts used to assemble these units
is of questionable quality from the time of assembly.

We recommend you just don't bother allowing your smart TV to try and prove its level of intellect to you. Trust us, you will only
be disappointed. Allow the laptop to be the smart one. Selling TV units to consumers as smart devices is somewhat misleading and really
requires further review into what defines them as "smart". They're usually just units that operate on outdated versions of Android and
have an ethernet port on the back or Wi-Fi capable connectivity.

Now that you have the laptop powering your smart TV, there is no reason to go any further if you don't want to make things any more
complicated and if you're not confident. But you might find it a little inconvenient that you have to control everything from the
laptop, rather than having a remote control at your fingertips. We have a solution to this problem. You can install the Unified Remote
server onto the laptop and install the equivalent app onto your smartphone. Once installed on the laptop, set it to run on Windows
startup and then all you have to do is launch the app on your smartphone and it will automatically synchronize with the laptop's
Unified Remote server. The smartphone app is effectively a remote control for the laptop, by allowing you to access a virtual keyboard,
mouse emulation and a simple media player remote control. The options on the media player remote are basic, with buttons for Volume
Up/Down, Mute, Forward/Back skip, Play/Pause and Stop. The best thing is, it's completely compatible with SMPlayer and foobar2000.
Inside the app, you can install additional components. One of them is a remote for Spotify. Brilliant!

Now that we have a full working remote control for our media setup, we need to think about how we can make our media more accessible
in the house and not so limited to just the one unit in one room. We have installed a media server. Essentially, this is a basic
headless PC desktop unit. Believe it or not, Windows 10 does a brilliant job of acting as a server. As our media server is also running
Windows 10, it's pretty much guaranteed to eliminate all network connectivity issues as Windows 10 systems always play nice with their
own kind.

Once you have setup your media server, you simply need to attach your media files to the network. We have our media files residing
on an external USB hard drive which plugs directly into the server and then we share the folders across the network and make it
accessible to everyone. This can be useful for large families with children, who can now access media on the server. It's free movies
and music for everyone in the house!

What type of connectivity you opt for is really up to you. You may find Wi-Fi is sufficient for you, but you will most likely find
the network slows greatly when multiple people try to access your media server. We actually do not recommend Wi-Fi. Only on very rare
occasions. And this is one of those cases that if you can, always stick to running your systems on the network with ethernet
connectivity. The most important system to ensure it connects via ethernet is the media server. Run the media server through a suitable
network switch connected to your gateway router and the media server should be freely accessible to others on the network.

The last step is to install ES File Manager on your Android smartphone. It's a brilliant file manager and has the ability to access
files over the local area network (LAN). Once installed, you no longer need YouTube, as you can now stream your own movies and favorite
music tracks to your smartphone, directly from your own media server over your own network.

January 4, 2018 | Bitcoin Simplified Explanation

Bitcoin is described as a "cryptocurrency". It was created under the developer alias of Satoshi Nakamoto and the source code released
as open-source, in 2009. It differs to other forms of digital currency like PayPal, because it is not owned, operated or controlled by one
single person or organization.

One of the first concepts of a cryptocurrency was suggested by cypherpunk and software engineer, Wei Dai, back in 1998. It was said by
Dai that cryptocurrency is "money which is impossible to regulate". Core concepts of Dai's cryptocurrency "b-money" were actually
implemented into Bitcoin. It is claimed that Wei Dai and British cryptographer, Adam Back, were two of the first people contacted by
Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 when Bitcoin was still under development.

The real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto has never been revealed. There has been speculation and claims by a few people of being the 'real'
Satoshi, however none of these claims have had enough evidence to substantiate and verify their claims. Therefore, they've all been
disputed. Many technologists and software engineers suggest that Satoshi Nakamoto is actually a team of developers and not just one person,
as originally believed. This is suggested because the source code is thought to be much too complex to be the effort of one sole individual.
Tecseek Technology believes this to be a very plausible explanation. It is most likely a group of developers who wish to see their work
adopted and spread organically, yet remain anonymous.

Essentially, Bitcoins are created by sophisticated computers processing extremely complicated math problems. The math problems are so
complex, it is the intention that it become extremely difficult to create fake Bitcoins. To date, the technology has been relatively
effective and it appears it will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

While solving the math problems, the computers are also confirming transactions on the network. The entire Bitcoin public ledger of
transactions is known as the "Blockchain". The Blockchain is kept by all miners. The result of the Blockchain is a distributed public ledger.
This allows the Bitcoin public ledger to exist without any centralized or controlled server. It can be described as a peer-to-peer
cryptocurrency network.

"Mining" is the term used to describe the process of adding transaction records to the public ledger. A "mining rig" is the term used to
describe a single computer or server system dedicated to performing the necessary and complex math computations for the "mining" process.

Pool mining and Individual mining:

"Pool mining" is where a bunch of people pool their computers together to mine and then the pool operator divides the rewards evenly among
all the miners in the pool.

"Individual mining" is pretty self-explanatory and describes an individual person using one individual computer system to mine.

The kinds of math problems aren't the normal problems that we studied at school. Math problems in this case refers to the SHA-256 secure
cryptographic hashing function, created by the NSA. It is used as a tool to secure the network, confirm transactions and create secure Bitcoin
addresses. To wrap your brain around it, think of a Bitcoin address as a Bitcoin account. The network is not used to process real world math
problems which will produce a result. It's about cryptography and security within the network. These math problems are bundled together in
groups called "Blocks". These problems ensure that no one miner can just jump in and confirm all transactions for themselves and claim the
reward. The math problems are the miner's "Proof of work".

When a block of these math problems is solved, Bitcoins are issued to the miner that solves the block of problems. The miner also receives
the transaction fees of all of the transactions that were processed in that block. (Bitcoin users pay a transaction fee every time they want
to send payment.)

If you have a mining farm (a bunch of computers solving these math problems and processing Bitcoin transactions) that solves a block, you
will get the reward. So, you would get current Bitcoin rate plus all transaction fees that were paid for the Bitcoin transactions in that block.
This goes on and on and on. Once a block is solved and the coins issued, all of the work being done by miners goes into a new block.

Assuming blockchain and Bitcoin technology is still around in 123 years from now, the last Bitcoin will be mined in the year [2]2140.
[Source: [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply] From that point onwards
the miners will only earn the transaction fees for the mining. You can think of this whole process like an automated accountant.

The purpose:

1) Process Bitcoin transactions on the network.

2) Limit the supply of Bitcoins so that they are not worthless.

3) Serve as the "Proof of work" that a miner was actually processing the mining for the network the entire time.

4) To create the public ledger of all transactions that takes place on the network.

A special thank you to Senthil Kumar, who also contributed to this article.

December 31, 2017 | Lack of Education of Alternate Operating Systems is Failing Our Students and the Industry

There is the very real potential for a global shortage of qualified and quality computer and software technicians.

There are so many great alternate operating systems in the public domain, some in a constant state of development, some readily available
and stable. Many public high schools still have extremely sub-standard information technology classes. These public classes usually only focus
on the sole usage of the Microsoft Windows operating system. In some cases, there may be some teaching using the Mac OS platform. But generally,
Windows is still assumed to be the default of most users. To educate students on one or two platforms, whilst ignoring all the alternatives,
is much too limiting and does not nearly do enough to take full advantage of the range of operating systems that are available.

It would not be uncommon to survey teenagers still studying in high school, asking them to list the operating systems they are familiar
with and find a majority response would be the same two platforms listed - Windows and Mac OS. We would not at all be surprised if
the result of reply with these same two answers would be very close to 100%. This lack of knowledge of what alternate operating systems are
available and in most cases completely free to download and use, is not the fault of students. It is a direct failing of the public high
school curriculum. Public education policy makers must start to pay attention and stop ignoring this issue which has the potential to cause
many problems in the not too distant future. And it may not be limited to just a few nations among the developed world. It could quickly
expand into a global problem and affect many countries.

We need to start teaching our teenage students about the advantages and disadvantages of different operating system platforms, who created
them, why they were supposedly created and their potential to fill a void in the marketplace.

We need to look deep into the development ecosystems of alternate operating systems and at different platforms, looking beyond the
Windows, Mac OS and even the Linux/Unix camps. There are third-party projects out there which get almost no attention. Are they worth the
attention? Absolutely, yes. Why do they not get the attention they deserve? Lack of education.

Windows and Mac OS are limited in scope, due to their commercial closed-source nature. Linux and BSD have brilliant mainstream offerings,
but they have equal brilliance beyond the mainstream projects which might be the default go-to of the platform. Sure, FreeBSD is great. But
what is even better and more fun to learn, is NetBSD. If you like the familiarities of Windows, then give ReactOS a shot. Or if you prefer the
command-prompt environment of Windows, then that's no problem either as you might enjoy FreeDOS.

Students need to be encouraged to be more open minded and be given opportunities to explore the different options. Not just in their spare
time, but as part of their education curriculum.

We need to encourage installation of these operating systems. We need to harvest and take full advantage of what modern software allows us
to do. Grab hold of the capabilities to essentially sandbox your operating system testing to Oracle VM VirtualBox and VMWare, or any other
virtual machine software. We live in an era of technical and software brilliance that literally hands everything to us on a silver platter.
Nobody gives a second thought to how that silver platter was constructed or if there is a different variation of the silver platter available to
deliver your goods.

All of the above is what we need to encourage students to do, plus more. Installing new operating systems, trying them, testing them,
encouraging them to break things and attempt to fix them when they break. All of these things are of great importance and of equal importance
to each other.

Despite the negative attitudes towards proprietary and commercial software from open-source advocates, closed-source software does have its
purpose in the market. As does open-source software. But it does not honestly have a place in technical teachings of operating systems. Education
spawns with the use of free and open-source software. The free and open-source software community does an amazing job of spreading the word,
the knowledge, their skills and the software itself in binary and source form. But it is no longer solely up to the community to do what high
schools should be doing. Because it should never be underestimated of the what further skills can be learned by literally heading into the
unknown. The result can be new skills learned, developed and improved. If enough interest is generated, then it opens up a very wide door which
has the potential for further development - whether it be a fork of an existing open-source project or something completely new. It's what the
industry needs to breed and develop new thoughts, new technology and new interest. Only through planting the seeds to grow this interest can
we begin to learn what potential we have at our disposal and begin to hone this interest into further skills and areas within the information
technology sector that these skills will be of benefit most.

It was way back in July that Tecseek Technology first brought you some detailed hints of the Ataribox. It's now December and the end of
2017 is fast approaching, but the Ataribox is still yet to make an appearance.

Since our initial write up on what the Ataribox could potentially be and what specifications it could contain on the inside, we've learned
that the unit will run on a Linux-based operating system, will contain Atari classics games as well as some inclusions by indie developers.
Additionally, Atari has released a few preview images of the system's joystick, which can be viewed on their Instagram.

At Tecseek Technology, we are a little disappointed that Atari hasn't provided much more information on the technical specifications of the
unit. According to the scarce details on the website, the unit is powered by what Atari is calling Open Linux OS. It remains unclear whether
this is a customized version of a Linux-based platform developed by Atari in-house specifically for the sole purpose of gaming, or whether
it's a modified Debian (or other) release. It's also unclear how the games will be launched by the user interface.

A stimulating thought to ponder is whether Atari have figured out how to run the games natively on top of Linux or whether the unit will
simply run the games from a pre-installed emulator. Unconfirmed information available to Tecseek Technology suggest that the Atari games will
be run off an emulator, while users will have complete access to the underlying Linux operating system to install additional games. If this
information is confirmed, then we suspect that the hardware inside will be very similar to a low-end PC. There are reports that the Ataribox
will run on a customized AMD CPU with Radeon graphics adapter. There is also the very real possibility of the unit including HDMI connectivity,
multiple USB ports, ethernet networking and an SD card slot for extra storage. How much flexibility there will be with the hardware and the
operating system is impossible to speculate. Therefore, it remains speculation until we can cite confirmation by Atari.

The eventual cost of the unit is also unclear and has not been confirmed by Atari, but there are hints that it may be between $249 to $299
mark. Assuming that the hardware will be similar to a low-end PC, this price point sounds like it's heading in the right range. Most likely
towards the top end of that price range.

Atari sent out a press email on December 12, with brief details revealing that the Ataribox would be available for pre-order on December
14. But then on December 14, we received another press email titled "Launch Delay". The new email stated that the unit had been delayed. The
given reason by Atari was so the company could take "more time to create the platform and ecosystem the Atari community deserves". It's a very
vague reason and does not really leave any hint as to when the unit will be available.

Various online reports now suggest that it will most likely be delayed until the second quarter of 2018. We hope it does eventually arrive
and sincerely hope that the entire project doesn't turn to vaporware. The Atari and retro gaming community are expecting something pretty
special from the company, with the upcoming release of the Ataribox. We certainly hope the company can deliver on its promise and live up to
the hype and expectations of the gaming community that awaits.

December 16, 2017 | Fedora 27 Review

The time between the release of Fedora 26 and 27 (F26 and F27, respectively) was very short. You could be forgiven for taking a position
to believe the release of F27 was not the full 6 month release cycle. It must be noted that in what was literally just a few months following
F26, F27 was not released early. The close time frame between the releases was the result of F26 being delayed. But F27 is nowhere, it's
running, so let's take a look at it.

Our initial thoughts follow on from F26, really. This is a good release. It's very sharp and nimble in operation. We have had it installed
since its release and it's never gave us any problems since the initial installation. It's also an attractive release. But it doesn't just have
good aesthetics, it has some solid goods underneath which make the release worth the real estate on your hard disk.

F27 comes with a Linux kernel 4.13.9 and GNOME Shell 3.26. The best feature in this release is that it comes pre-loaded with Firefox Quantum
- the latest update to the popular Firefox web browser. We believe Fedora 27 is the first version of a Linux based operating system to have
Firefox Quantum included out of the box. Obviously, any other distribution can update the Firefox package to Quantum. And the next versions of
all the mainstream Linux operating systems will include Firefox Quantum also. Still, it's great that F27 had the timing right and was able to
include Firefox Quantum, which we must stress is well worth the upgrade. There are still some reports of some extensions not working correctly
with Firefox Quantum. So if you're a heavy user of extensions, you might want to do your research to ensure they will work correctly under
Firefox Quantum. By the time this Review goes to press [delayed, due to unforeseen circumstances] most popular Firefox extensions should have
been upgraded to work with Quantum.

Everything else inside the final F27 package is pretty standard stuff. There's not a lot of custom stuff that is visible to the eye ball.
But it has the true feel and spirit of Fedora, where it counts. We recommend if you're already running F26, make the jump to F27. There's many
good releases of Linux based operating systems available now. It's becoming difficult to differentiate one distribution from the other. But
that's alright. Because if they're stable and they're secure, then we have no problem recommending any of the mainstream distributions to new
Linux adoptees. Thankfully, Fedora is fast, secure and its development and funding is backed by Red Hat. Therefore, we place it towards the
top of the Linux recommendations camp.

December 16, 2017 | Securing Windows 10 Doesn't Have to Cost You Money

Windows 10 is pretty impressive in its security, when compared to its predecessors. The firewall is resilient and stays out of the way
whilst doing its job. And the default inclusion of Windows Defender is a nice security addition. Unfortunately, the Windows operating
system platform does still suffer from being a prime target for hackers and virus writers. While it is possible to run Windows 10 without
antivirus software, as many advanced users do, we don't recommend it unless you have serious knowledge and understanding of the underlying
file system structure of Windows and the system registry and you're confident you can resolve any security issues that might infect the
system while running naked. If you're not confident, then please install an antivirus program. Which one and how? Tecseek Technology is
here to help.

Let us first start by saying that although there are some reputable commercial antivirus software packages available for purchase, many
of them are extremely overpriced, overrated and bloated with unnecessary features that simply slow down your system and duplicate the same
features already included within Windows and your web browsers. There are many free antivirus options available, but you need to be cautious
about your choice. As with commercial packages for purchase, there are also some free options that you should avoid.

This article is not a round-up of all the free options available. There's plenty of those articles already on the internet. We're not
going to flood the internet with even more of the same thing. Today, we're focusing on Kaspersky Free.

Kaspersky security software has been around for a very long time. But Kaspersky Free only emerged as an offering in 2017. Please note,
it is offered for free on a non-commercial basis. Other than this limitation, there's not much that has been chopped from the free service.
Kaspersky Free offers a full antivirus service which takes care of your operating system security, with additional security features which
extend to files, web, instant messages and email. Independent third-party security testing demonstrates that Kaspersky holds its own when
compared to its competition, consistently rating at the high end of the scale. Despite some allegations that Kaspersky has links to the
Russian Government, the allegations have never been proven and remain just that - allegations. Therefore, we are not taking this into
consideration with our recommendation.

The features that are not available in Kaspersky Free are extended application control, firewall, private browsing, webcam protection,
anti-banner, network attack blocker, system watcher, anti-spam, application manager and a feature called safe money. Whilst these all sound
like brilliant features, many of them are taken care of by features built-in to your web browser and the Windows operating system. The only
missing piece which we recommend you need to pay attention to is malware protection. As good as Kaspersky Free is, there will be specific
types of malware that will not be detected. This is common with antivirus services and by no means unique to Kaspersky Free. This is something
that is easily resolved by installing Malwarebytes, which is also free. As with antivirus software packages, Malwarebytes offers a premium
service. But we don't recommend you upgrade to any premium packages. The simple fact is if you are running Kaspersky Free plus Malwarebytes
Free, combined with the existing Windows Firewall, Defender and the internal security features of Windows, then your system is going to be
pretty difficult for viruses/malware to break. Albeit, not impossible.

With software and computer security, there is no such existing solution that will secure a system 100%. It's not technically feasible to
demand 100% security. But installing the aforementioned services won't cost you a penny and is easily up to the task of keeping you and your
system safe.

It's not just software that keeps you safe, it's also your own computer habits that you must pay attention to and improve in areas you
know are failing. There are simply too many occasions where computer users start blaming their computer and its software for letting them
down when things go pear shaped. But those that work within the computer security and service industry will tell you that in just about
every case we review, it's the user that is at fault but is simply unwilling to accept the blame for their often unintentional and innocent
stupidity. Stay away from pirated software and do not visit websites that you know to be a risk to your system, or have any possibility to
pose a risk. There are so many free and open-source software choices now available for Windows (and Linux), there is no excuse for users to
be running pirated software.

Upgrade your Windows operating system to Windows 10, patch your system with the latest updates, install Kaspersky Free plus Malwarebytes
Free and you are sure to have one of the most secure home computer systems in your street.

October 20, 2017 | Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark) Review

Before we delve into the release that is Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark), we need to make a disclaimer. The staff at Tecseek Technology
have vast experience in testing and reviewing lots of different free and open-source software and Linux distributions - especially Ubuntu.
If you search our website for previous Ubuntu reviews, you might notice there is a severe absence. What you will find available to read on
the website is limited. Our limited coverage of Ubuntu is a result of a major data loss event that we experienced recently. The data loss
was not the result of anything malicious, rather the sole result of our own malpractice through a combination of hardware failures and data
migration between servers. Therefore, despite our vast experience in publishing reputable Ubuntu reviews, we are unable to present to you
our previous efforts. We apologize and is disappointing for us. But we are looking forward to the future and taking this latest Ubuntu
release as an opportunity for a reboot.

Now with that out of the way, let's get to work and get rebooted in an attempt to restore the faith our readers once had in our Ubuntu
reviews, which were always very much anticipated upon release of a new Ubuntu version. Read on loyal minions.

Equal to Tecseek Technology using this release as an opportunity to reboot, the release of 17.10 is a fresh start for the popular
distribution. It's the first release which utilizes the GNOME Shell as the default desktop environment. Ubuntu has decided to ditch the
relatively unpopular Unity desktop in favor of the much better developed and supported GNOME Shell. It was a great decision, we believe, as
we absolutely loathed Unity and thought it was just unworkable. And no matter how many additions, changes and tweaks Unity received, it just
never quite felt like it was workable as a desktop for daily usage. So we're really happy that Ubuntu has adopted GNOME Shell. That is the
biggest update for 17.10.

We will happily declare that we've always had a soft spot for Ubuntu. It really is the darling of Linux distributions that is well
deserving of the love that it receives from the open-source community. We instantly fell in love with 17.10 from the moment we began testing
the development builds. Visually, it's so fresh and appealing. We love the aesthetics - the background, GNOME Shell and the semi-transparent
side-bar and top navigation bar.

We commenced testing 17.10 from the earliest of the daily builds. As development has progressed, we witnessed 17.10 evolve into one of the
finest, most polished and reliable desktop Linux distributions available at this very moment. The world of Linux and the rapid progress of
distribution development and releases makes it really hard to pin-point the ¿best' distribution at any point in time. If we were to choose
one right now, Ubuntu 17.10 would undoubtedly be our first pick.

At the time we go to press, we are using a completely updated build of 17.10 with the latest packages running on GNOME Shell 3.26.1 and
Linux kernel 4.13.0. To be honest, we're really surprised to find such a recent kernel in a Ubuntu release. Traditionally, the focus has been
on stability and as a result of this focus, the sacrifice has usually been made to drop back a couple of kernel version numbers for something
a little more proven. By choosing to use a very recent kernel version it doesn't mean there's any sacrifice in stability. We put 17.10 through
some pretty keen testing and experienced nothing that could take points away from any such stability rating.

The only issue we can take with the default behavior of 17.10 is the window control buttons. The developers have chosen to move them back to
the right. Yes, you read that correct! The decision for Ubuntu to move them to the left was taken way back in 2010. Although it was
controversial at the time, the decision was made on the basis that it was more natural and also allowed for less mouse-drag due to application
menus also usually being located on the left of an application's graphical interface. It all made sense, really. Since the move, we have
actually adapted very well to having them on the left and find it very natural indeed. So natural that when we use a Windows-based system, we
habitually move the mouse over to the left. But we quickly find ourselves flicking over to the right, because Windows likes to stick to
tradition.

Well, seven years on from the initial decision by Ubuntu to move them to the left, tradition wins over innovation and they've moved back to
the right. We could go ahead an write a ten thousand word essay on the advantages and disadvantages of the specific location of the window
control buttons on an operating system. Yet at the end of the day, it's going to come down to personal choice and what feels natural for the
user in front of the screen. To us, we're sticking with our declaration that the left feels more natural and still makes sense. Therefore,
switching them back to the left was one of the first tweaks we performed upon fresh installation of 17.10. This was easily achieved by one simple
command in the terminal console. An annoyance, for sure. But certainly not a problem to resolve.

We don't want to focus too much on what applications you'll find pre-installed. But rest assured that all the usual applications are present.
There's enough to get you going right out-of-the-box. For those software applications and packages you like to use that are missing, they can
obviously be quickly installed in the terminal console in just minutes, using APT.

There's everything to love and nothing to hate with 17.10. It's by far the most attractive Ubuntu release to date and the switch to GNOME
Shell has made it even more enticing. Whereas distributions like OpenSUSE have previously beat Ubuntu out of the gates on aesthetics and final
system polish, it's a very different story this round. It has the goods - popularity, great community support, aesthetics, stability and
ease-of-use.

If someone was to ask us right this minute which Linux distribution is the best to install on the desktop, we would find it hard to
recommend any other distribution other than Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark).

October 8, 2017 | CentOS 7.4 (1708) Review

We've taken a look at CentOS 7.4 (1708), which is the latest community supported Linux distribution backed by the commercial giant,
Red Hat. In past months, we've looked in closer detail the releases of Fedora 26 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.4. Now it's time
we take a quick look at the latest offering to badge the support of Red Hat.

Let's keep this simple - CentOS is basically RHEL, without commercial support through paid subscriptions. CentOS is based off the RHEL
source code, however, it is supported through the efforts of the Linux development community.

Does it differentiate that much from RHEL? Not really. It performs well, is incredibly stable, very reliable and has fantastic support
for an operating system intended to be installed in a small office environment or on enterprise systems that can be completely supported
and managed under the guidance of a small to medium in-house IT department.

There's not much put into CentOS that sets it aside from RHEL. It's almost identical in every way with the exception of logos and
branding. We gave it a quick run through using Oracle's VM VirtualBox software. It's stable and fast, yet still seems like an operating
system limited in use. Whereas distributions like the more popular Ubuntu and Fedora have slightly more flexibility, CentOS feels like it
should stick to its target market rather than thinking about mainstream wider adoption of Linux desktop users.

Don't misinterpret our opinion. The flexibility is there if you feel like doing some serious hacking and reconfiguration of the core
CentOS components. But to be honest, we recommend you don't bother unless you're completely bored and have nothing better to do with your
time.

The points we make should not be viewed as a negative reflection of CentOS. Absolutely the opposite. It's just set in its ways and fit
for purpose, with no foreseeable benefits of trying to force it to do anything out of its comfort zone.

At the time of going to press, our test CentOS virtual machine contained the Linux kernel 3.10.0 and Bash 4.2.46. It also runs the
GNOME Shell desktop environment that is basically identical to that of RHEL. CentOS also sticks with YUM and RPM, versions 3.4.3 and 4.11.3
for system package management, respectively. As does RHEL. Whilst Fedora opts for the more updated yet comparatively powerful DNF package
management software.

If you are already managing a small fleet of desktop systems running CentOS, or perhaps a server or two, you will naturally make the
upgrade. In fact, by the time you read this piece, you're probably already running it. If it's fresh deployment with pretty strict control
that you're looking for, CentOS will have you covered. But if you're running a support team and want your system's users to have slightly
more flexibility and control of what they do with their systems, then we would probably recommend sticking with Fedora Linux, perhaps
accompanied with a server running CentOS. There's absolutely no reason you can't accompany the two into the same network and configuration.
It will all be dependent on the software requirements of your enterprise users.

Before making any quick adoption, be sure CentOS is the right choice for you and your production environment.

August 21, 2017 | Distraction Free Typing, With FocusWriter

When we are entering text into a computer, we usually use a word processor of some kind. The boring old standard has always been
Microsoft Word. Some users may even opt to use the much slimmed down version which is included in the Windows operating system, WordPad.
Many features are missing from WordPad but it does have the very basics to get the job done. The most obvious omission would have to be
the absence of a spell checker. If you want a better word processing package which does include all the features of Word but simply don't
want to fork out the cash for the hideously expensive Microsoft Office suite, perhaps you might want to take a look at the free option of
LibreOffice. It is a free office suite which does include a feature-complete word processor, but it's large in size, takes up a lot of
disk space on your system and in the same sense as Microsoft Word contains probably much too many features that just are not required or
even considered for use by the average user. Or maybe you're the type of person that simply doesn't like a cluttered interface and wants
absolute distraction free typing, without sacrificing the most important features used in a word processor. There are some notepad-type
software packages that capable of doing exactly this, but it's somewhat of a case of using the wrong tool for the wrong job, despite the
fact that it does do the job. Well, the great news is that we can tell you that you no longer have to make sacrifices. There is a word
processor that offers absolute distraction free typing and includes a nice set of features that make a word processor better equipped for
the task, than just a notepad. Tecseek Technology introduces FocusWriter.

FocusWriter offers complete distraction free typing and word processing, offers an in-built spell checker and saves files in the
OpenDocument (ODT), OpenDocument XML (FODT), RTF (RTF) and Plain Text (TXT) formats. Also included is the usual expected features of
Cut/Copy/Paste, Bold/Italic/Underline, Alignment, Find/Replace and even a session manager. There are also a few added extras such as Daily
Progress tool, Symbols and a Timing function. Sure, all these features are pretty standard stuff and don't really differentiate it from
any other word processor. That is true. But there is one feature of FocusWriter that puts this package one above the rest. That is
distraction free typing.

FocusWriter is developed using QT and uses a distraction free mode by default. There is a small range of styles and backgrounds in the
preferences. But we reckon if you want absolute distraction free typing with an easy-on-the-eye screen mode, we recommend you settle for
the "Old School" theme. It presents the user with a complete black background and on screen text is matrix green. The black/matrix green
presentation offers the best combination for achieving distraction free typing and the matrix green text color is excellent enough to read
both during the day and at night, without any kind of eye strain or squinting (unless you have some other eye condition you're unaware
of).

Since we commenced using FocusWriter, we have been asking ourselves how can it be that we have survived so long without it. The perfect
combination of just the right amount of features, brilliance of the distraction free typing with the carefully designed mouse gestures when
you move the cursor to the screen edge all functions well and feels so natural.

If you find yourself getting frustrated with the bloated interface of your current word processor and want something that stays out of
your way without sacrificing the most essential of features to get the job done, then please consider installing FocusWriter. We have
installed FocusWriter on Ubuntu using the PPA provided. It is completely free and open-source and is available on all popular Linux platforms
in addition to Microsoft Windows and Mac OS.

August 17, 2017 | Easily Check System Uptime on Microsoft Windows 10

To Linux system administrators, a task as simple as checking system uptime is quite simple. You just open up a terminal and enter:

$ uptime

The simply syntax is such a routine task, we doubt that anyone has even really given it a second thought. But what happens when you jump onto
a Microsoft Windows operating system?

PowerShell (PS) has eased the burden of many daily tasks you might perform inside a Linux terminal console. However, as good as PS is, it's not
the absolute lifesaver that Microsoft will try and market to you that it is. We take nothing away from PS. We use it here in the office in addition
to Command Prompt and Clink. But oddly enough, a simple task like checking uptime still can't be done with the same amount of ease as what it's
done in Linux.

Thankfully, there is a company that has recognized this relatively simple void, in the world of Windows and provided a simple executable binary
that can do exactly what we need.

NeoSmart Technologies has just released Uptime v1.0. It's a simple binary file that you just save to the default home directory for the user in
Windows 10. You can download the binary for free from the NeoSmart Technologies website.

Once you have downloaded the binary, save it to:

C:\Users\username\uptime.exe

You simply need to open up Command Prompt or PowerShell, then enter the following syntax into your console, depending on which one you're
running.

For Command Prompt, enter the following:

C:\Users\username uptime.exe -h

For PowerShell, enter the following:

PS C:\Users\username .\uptime.exe -h

Once you've executed the correct syntax, you will be presented with the uptime output of the Windows system you're using just as simply as what
you would when using Linux.

August 14, 2017 | Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.4 Review

Red Hat have released their latest update to the company's enterprise Linux line-up. We set ourselves up to perform a full review of Red Hat
Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.4. Although we're no strangers to RHEL, we must declare that this is the first time we ever set out to review the much
respected enterprise-grade Linux operating system. It's a very different animal to tame from what we're used to here at Tecseek Technology. So
we will happily admit, we had to move away from our tradition approach we take to Linux reviews and instead, rethink everything.

So what did we end up with as a result of our refreshed and rethought attitude? Read ahead and see.

When you work with software and Linux for the purpose of testing and reviews, you kind of get used to having the very latest in software source
code and binary builds right at our fingertips. But then something strange happened. We unexpectedly got RHEL dumped on our desk for testing and
review. The first thing we realized was the immediate need to wipe from our brains the usual expected results of what Linux kernel version is
included in the build. The latest Red Hat update includes the longterm support branch Linux kernel 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64, accompanied by Bash
4.2.46 as the default shell. Usually, we see the latest kernel branches included in the latest Linux distribution releases. But obviously RHEL is
a very different beast and is primary focused on stability and support for enterprise systems. It is the very core of Red Hat's commercial business
structure. So if you want a Red Hat endorsed Linux distribution that includes later Linux kernel(s), then you will have to look at Fedora Linux.
The focus on stability is also visible when you take a look at Firefox, which opts for the Extended Support Release (ESR) branch. This guarantees
support for extended periods of time. Much longer than what is provided by later builds of mainstream Firefox.

OK, enough of the garble. What how does RHEL perform as a daily Linux distribution? Let's look at it in a little closer detail.

RHEL has made the move to GNOME 3 and finally embraced the Shell by including a GNOME 3.22.3 desktop environment. Red Hat makes a surprise
inclusion of the popular GNOME Tweak Tool. There are a bunch of extensions pre-loaded and enabled by default. These go some way as to make the
GNOME 3 desktop in RHEL much more usable and friendly. It's labeled as GNOME Classic at the login screen and is the default environment. You can
switch the full GNOME Shell to give the user a more complete GNOME experience, but we recommend sticking with GNOME Classic as the default login
for RHEL. At the time of the announcement to move RHEL to GNOME 3, Red Hat was met with some criticism among some of the more dedicated Linux
circles. Eventually, the change would have been inevitable due to support and development being dropped for the old GNOME 2 source code. The project
was forked to eventually become MATE and is now a project primarily led by Linux Mint developers. But Red Hat decided it was in the best interest of
RHEL to stick with the well supported GNOME desktop. They've made the necessary changes to make the transition as easy as possible, largely thanks
to the inclusion of the GNOME Tweak Tool and the default changes Red Hat have shipped. It works very well and we see no obvious reason why anyone
could have reason to complain about the desktop's behavior out-of-the-box. Although, we're sure there is some people out there in the darkness
waiting to sit down at their desk in front of a shiny new workstation running RHEL, ready to complain about it. But we believe complaints are
unjustified.

With an enterprise-grade operating system like RHEL that is focused on stability and support, you don't really see many new features. At least
not visually. Although we do like the RHEL 7.4 wallpapers! RHEL does include a couple of features under-the-hood which grabbed our attention.
Anaconda will now specifically wait for network connectivity to become available, in some installation environments. Previously, failed DHCP requests
would result in Anaconda proceeding to installation. Now, system administrators can add the waitfornet=X syntax to the boot instructions. Where X is
the set amount of seconds to wait before the installer continues on to a default installation. This neat addition eliminates the possibility of the
installer unexpectedly proceeding before the network has been detected and an IP address assigned to the system. This is particularly useful on busy
networks when detection of network connectivity and DCHP assignment might take slightly longer than what Anaconda expects. Another feature we like is
a cool package called USBGuard, which is effectively a system protection tool that aims to protect the system in the event that an intrusive or
unwanted USB device is attached. It functions on USB device attributes and according to a whitelist/blacklist determination to apply its system
protection. Finally, more security enhancements have made their way into this release with updates included for OpenSSL, OpenSSH plus additional
firewall changes for better system protection.

RHEL still uses YUM as the default tool for handling packaging and updates. It's interesting that Red Hat has not adapted DNF for RHEL, as they've
deprecated YUM for Fedora Linux in favor of DNF. Although YUM is still included in RHEL, we feel that eventually it will be deprecated also, in favor
of the newer DNF packaging tool. Regardless, YUM still gets the job done and is very fast. BtrFS will be deprecated in RHEL. It has previously included
several technology preview releases, but Red Hat has decided that BtrFS will not be moved to a full supported version for RHEL and the popular filesystem
will be deprecated in future versions. So if you're a system administrator planning on installing RHEL with BtrFS, then you might want to reconsider
your options and requirements. If you're really keen on BtrFS, then you can still take up the options that CentOS and Fedora Linux offer as it is a
brilliant filesystem which can hold its own against Oracle's ZFS and Microsoft's ReFS.

RHEL is only supported and updated by paid contract support by Red Hat. So if you go ahead and install RHEL without proper support contracts in
effect, then don't be expecting to get updates filtered through to your system. You will also not be able to go ahead and install packages using YUM from
inside RHEL. We bypassed the Red Hat subscription limitation (for testing purposes) by adding the CentOS repositories to RHEL. This is particularly useful
if you want to add some software or additional packages to RHEL. But don't try updating the RHEL system using the CentOS repositories as it will
essentially convert your system into a CentOS system. You will quickly see Red Hat logos and branding disappear and CentOS branding put in its place. If
you want updates, then you will need to take a look at the community supported offering of CentOS. To summarize, CentOS is RHEL for the consumer, with
financial backing and official endorsement by Red Hat.

As a side-note, we should mention Tecseek Technology will be taking a look at the new CentOS 7 (1708) release, which will be based on RHEL 7.4 source
code. The update should be available by mid-September. We will take a look at it as soon as we get a build arrive on our desk.

In closing, RHEL 7.4 is a brilliant enterprise-grade Linux distribution. Red Hat have led the field in the area of subscription-based Linux for the
enterprise sector, in addition to their massive development contributions through source code development and financial support to a whole range of Linux
and open-source related projects. Canonical (Founded in 2004) has made significant advancements along the same lines, but don't seem to be able to grasp
the same leverage that Red Hat has achieved on open-source software. But we need to mention the achievements Canonical have made on the brilliant quality
release of Linux, that is Ubuntu. However, they have struggled slightly in the tight enterprise market. That's not an entirely fair summary though, as Red
Hat has been around longer (Founded in 1993) and essentially had a head-start. But we really love Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.4. And if you need fully
supported Linux in the enterprise and business sector, then it's going to be a no-brainer to use Red Hat as your first choice.

August 5, 2017 | OpenSUSE Leap 42.3 Review

The first thing you might notice about OpenSUSE Leap 42.3 is that visually it appears to be almost identical to Leap 42.2. If you were to
look at the two side-by-side on identical systems, you'd be forgiven for not being able to tell the difference between the two. It's only when
you jump into a terminal console and have a poke around underneath is where you're able to go hunting for key differences. ie. Linux kernel
version, Bash version. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not. It just makes it more difficult for us to differentiate the parts that stand out
the most for presenting this Review. But we promise we will do our best in presenting the most honest Review we possibly can to our readers.

As always, we proceeded our testing by updating the system through SSH and PuTTY. With very few updates required to be downloaded and
installed, we had a fully updated system within minutes of boot. We opted to stick with KDE for Leap 42.3. As you always like to point out, the
installer has the option for KDE Plasma, GNOME or Server instances. The latter option will install a console system only, intended to be used for
servers or the very keen Linux user who has not yet moved on from the days of old and into the world of the desktop GUI. Or there might users out
there that just simply have no logical reason to be running Linux with a GUI. Whatever the reason for your installation choice, OpenSUSE has all
bases covered.

What we absolutely love about OpenSUSE in general is the verbose power it gives the user. Essentially, the user can really own the system.
There is so much information that can be gathered by the user, it's almost ridiculous. This is largely thanks to the software management tools
provided. Two of the most important would have to be YaST and KInfocenter. Combined, they provide all the power, control and information about
your system. Add in the System Monitor and you have absolute killer system feedback and technical information right at your fingertips. Still,
we find the System Monitor referenced under the very peculiar entry of KSysGuard in the application menu. Yet, when you actually enter the
application and view the developer credits and version information, everything refers to System Monitor. This should actually be changed in the
application menu to more suitably refer to what it actually is, to avoid major confusion.

On the software side of things, it's business as usual. And by that, we mean OpenSUSE and KDE have everything covered. Firefox handles your
web browsing needs, while Kmail has email under control. To complement Kmail, you also have KAddressbook, Kontact and KOrganizer. It's great to
have all these options available for all these different packages, but we're beginning to wonder whether there's room for consolidation in
OpenSUSE, starting with integrating some of these packages via a third-party developed wrapper program and into one office productivity suite.
It seems a little overkill when you could simply install Thunderbird and have basically all of those features in one software application.
Instead, we see OpenSUSE including 3-4 different applications to get your emails, contacts and appointments organized. However, this is where
the KDE Plasma desktop takes over and one of its biggest assets really shines. It has an advantage over any other desktop environment - graphical
integration. Even though many KDE-based applications are completely separate packages, they remain tightly integrated thanks to KDE Plasma's
unique ability to make everything appear as one nicely integrated system. Clever. OpenSUSE is probably better known for its support and pushing
of KDE Plasma more than any other Linux distributor. They deserve credit for it and for sticking with it for so many years. Because KDE Plasma
is a very different beast and has gone in a different direction to where GNOME (and the now defunct Unity) have gone. Still, we think application
consolidation would not be a bad thing to consider for future releases.

We'll mention a few miscellaneous packages too, for interests sake. GIMP is still included, which is great to see. Too many Linux
distributions have dropped the inclusion of GIMP by default, simply due to its size bloating the final ISO size. But we believe it should be
included in all mainstream distributions, as size limits are not really a problem in 2017 with the benefits of digital distribution and ISO size
no longer being restricted to the CD-R size of ~700MB. It's a moot excuse and we reckon it deserves its place to be included by default.

Codecs have always been a sore spot for Linux users. We still have to install codecs post-installation and Leap 42.3 is no exception. All
popular codecs are located inside the Packman Repositories. There is a brilliant website that you can visit called opensuse-community.org and it
includes the One-Click Installer buttons which will handle the entire codec installation process for you. Yes, it is a pain in the rear-end that
we still have to go installing codecs, but there's really no justification for complaint when the process is made so simple. Kudos to OpenSUSE
Developers and the wider developer community for filling the void here and making it simple. Once codecs are installed, OpenSUSE has Amarok
included for audio playback and Dragon Player for video playback. It's a bit of an unusual combination as personally, we don't like either
application. We recommend a much more powerful combination of Qmmp for audio and VLC for video.

OpenSUSE Leap 42.3 is a great release. There's not really anything brand new and not really any groundbreaking new feature that makes the
release a must have. It's an update to Leap 42.2, which was respectfully a brilliant release. It works flawlessly inside a virtual machine with
full support for everything we threw at it, including display drivers which give us proper screen resolutions without the restrictions that we
experience with some distributions. Additionally, you get even better performance on bare metal. With brilliant support for any environment,
great performance and fine KDE polish, we recommend you consider it as your latest Linux installation.

August 5, 2017 | Fedora 26 Review

We are still licking our wounds from the horror and torture we experienced from Fedora 25. In what was originally intended to be a Tecseek
Technology full review of Fedora 25 (F25), resulted in complete disaster and to the outside reader could be read as a rant. That would be a
fair analysis. It was absolutely a rant and we feel we had every right to publish a rant, considering what a shoddy build F25 was. We are still
scarred from it. If you wish to go back and read about our traumatic experience, feel free to do so before reading our thoughts on Fedora 26
(F26). Is there positive news ahead? Absolutely. F26 is a completely different experience - a positive experience. The new release restored our
faith in the distribution and has some fine polish to boot.

We always refer to Fedora as one of the most finely polished Linux distributions available. Probably on par with OpenSUSE which never
disappoints in the competitive arena of Linux polish. F26 reaffirms this common perception and its overall aesthetics don't disappoint. We adore
the default background for the Workstation build. The optional stock wallpapers are always worthy of equal appreciation. We logged on to our
test build by through SSH using PuTTY and updated the system to the latest packages. The build we tested after a quick update containing ~500MB
of package updates, contained a Linux kernel 4.11.11. Having a deeper poke around the desktop and we found some nice added goodies, including a
Clocks application accompanied with a World Clock, a selection of Timers and an Alarm clock. Similar to what you'd find on any typical cell
phone device. We found it a pleasant application to use on the desktop. This was complemented by the equally neat Weather application. You can
add different cities into the Weather application or use location-based detection if you roam around lots. We find location-based services
pretty ordinary on laptop systems as location detection is usually sourced off your internet connection, which if you're paying attention is
more often than not, never actually where you are physically located. Effectively, this will produce weather feedback that may not be so
relevant to your actual current location. Instead, we prefer to manually enter our locations of weather interest. To finish off what we would
describe as the smart desktop, we recommend you take a look at the Maps and Contacts applications too.

The Workstation build is solid and we experienced nothing to complain about. The improvements that we've experienced in F26 compared to its
predecessor are vast and impressive. Regardless of desktop environment of choice, we prefer dark themes. Unfortunately, there's no global dark
theme option inside F26. So we installed the trusty GNOME Tweak Tool and enabled the global dark theme. While we were at it, we also changed the
windows controls buttons to display Maximize and Minimize buttons. By default, the GNOME desktop shipped with F26 only displays a Close button
for your windows. We find the absence of the Maximize/Minimize control buttons very annoying and unnatural. We were quick to reinstate them.
The fix is rather simple if their absence annoys you too. For a little extra desktop juiciness, we added a Places button to the GNOME desktop
panel. It makes the task of opening your files much quicker and it will have positive productivity results if you're a heavy graphical file
manager user. One last recommendation is to install PCManFM and change it to the default graphical file manager. We hate the default
Nautilus/Files application. It resembles nothing of the power that Nautilus once provided to the user and PCManFM goes some way to restoring the
user that lost power. Or you can go full console file manager and install Midnight Commander (mc).

The rest of the GNOME desktop on the F26 Workstation release is pretty much GNOME standard, with the usual feast of Firefox for internet,
Evolution for email and LibreOffice to take care of your daily paperwork requirements. The inclusion of Evolution is interesting. We prefer
Thunderbird for email, however we can easily adapt to Evolution if needed. But if you really want to install Thunderbird, you can easily do so
along with removing Evolution in the process. Overall, there is a nice blend of applications and if installed in the workplace, everything is
there to get your day started. If there's anything that we would declare a must, post-installation, it would be the installation of the
aforementioned GNOME Tweak Tool. Those few little extra tweaks it enables makes the GNOME desktop feel that little more complete and consumer
ready. We like Fedora 26 and believe that if you're looking to install Linux fresh, then out of all the mainstream distributions available, this
would be our recommendation.

July 29, 2017 | Atari Still Teasing Us With Ataribox Details

When Atari first hinted at new Atari-branded gaming hardware, through the release of its first teaser video, there was hysteria among internet
users, gamers and older Atari fans.

The promotional teaser didn't show much at all, really. There is no mention of hardware type, specifications or what device was actually in the
release pipeline from the legendary technology company. It was essentially a camera panning over a very traditional Atari design of ribbed finished
plastic and also elements of its traditional wood grain finish. We learned very little from the teaser video. The video was released to simply
achieve what it did - tease our Atari senses and give us the sudden feeling of wanting more Atari goodness in our fingers.

Tecseek Technology has been on the watch for any new information that may hint at some kind of detail about what Atari is planning to release. We
suspect that it will be PC based hardware. We have not yet received much information from Atari other than a press email which recently arrived in
our inbox.

We know it is currently being called the Ataribox. Whether this is the final name of the device or whether it will be changed when final release
approaches, we do not know. The press email did show an image of a design of the Ataribox. Whether this image is the final design was not confirmed,
but Atari are claiming that the design aims to stay true to the company's heritage and should please both old and new Atari fans. Based on the images
we've seen, we think it looks good and we are so damn excited.

The Ataribox is sticking with the traditional ribbed design and contains specific design elements which pay homage to the original Atari consoles
which made the company so famous. Also, there are intentions to release two different designs - wood and a black/red edition.

We have a basic understanding of the possible design of the Ataribox, but what kind of hardware are we likely to see inside? Well according to the
press email we received, the unit will contain HDMI output, USB connectivity and SD memory I/O. There is no more information yet confirmed by Atari
on internal hardware specifications or what operating system the device will run. Sony Playstation actually runs a BSD-based operating system whilst
Microsoft Xbox is running a modified Windows platform. We watch with a keen eye to see whether the Ataribox gets a Linux-based operating system.
Alternatively, Atari may very well choose to go down the same path as Sony and opt for a modified BSD-based platform.

The company states that any further technical details will be released as more information can be made public over the course of the duration of
development. But Atari did confirm that the unit will deliver Atari gaming classics as well as new game content. In what kind of form the gaming
experience will be delivered, remains a mystery.

As expected, there's absolutely no information about any expected pricing for the eventual Ataribox unit, games or accessories. Understandably,
it's just way too early to even consider what price bracket the Ataribox will slip into. But the company does claim that they are listening to
community input, reactions and social media feedback which hopefully, will be reflected in the final unit's design and content delivery.

We eagerly await for more information and specifications for the Ataribox. Tecseek Technology will publish more details as it arrives in our
inbox.

July 6, 2017 | Google News Gutted Beyond Use

Google News has been one of the company's services that has seemingly remained untouched for many years. It wasn't a major problem, as the
functionality was all there. Google News is and remains a very popular service provided by this behemoth of a company, Google which remains under
its parent company Alphabet Inc., and is primarily developed around the core function of internet search. The News service collated and aggregated
news from a variety of sources chosen by the user. Or if the user was not logged in or using custom settings for their own choice of news sources,
Google would simply present the user with a selection of news from sources chosen by them. Essentially, this is done by Google's very advanced
computer algorithms.

News was brilliant. It was often underestimated just how good it was and how useful it could be to news nerds and even those who work in the
media and publishing industry. It would be safe to say that it was probably most likely a little underappreciated as well. Google knew this and
undoubtedly it would have been taken into consideration when the News service recently received its first interface overhaul in many years.

Interestingly, there was very little excitement when Google recently upgraded the appearance of News accompanied by some additional functionality
changes. Google will tout the changes are actually improvements. We absolutely dispute any comments from Google to suggest the changes are any kind
of improvement. If that's what the changes were genuinely intended to be.

There has been a major loss of functionality and despite the Google News Team's blog post about the update touting that the company want to give
the user more control, this is somewhat a little overstated as we have noticed a significant amount of reduced functionality since the introduction
of the latest round of updates. Settings we used to be able to change and tweak to our liking have now been removed. Settings that were once easy to
find have now been skinned alive and streamlined into a more simplified configuration interface and a more narrow choice of configuration options.

Google News has effectively been gutted.

The changes have also removed several news and weather sections which were very useful, based on the location set and locations detected. Now, it
attempts to provide news and weather based on detected location rather than what you have set. We tried changing this setting inside the configuration
options to no avail. It insisted on providing us with news based on the location of Perth. Our office is based on the Gold Coast in the State of
Queensland. If our readers are unfamiliar with the country of Australia, then we can tell you our country is large. The Gold Coast is on the east coast
of the nation, Perth is on the west coast. Therefore, news provided for Perth has absolutely no relevance to us. And neither does the weather for
Perth.

We feel this is either a major oversight by News developers or a major bug which made it way into the update roll out. Or just a downright stupid
decision. Whatever the explanation, Google needs to fix this to regain any kind of credibility to its News service.

News has been an important part of our office information gathering process. We operate in a shared office environment and news is sourced from a
variety of online services, sources and wires. Google News provided us with a vital platform for news and information gathering and offered the great
aggregation platform that we have required to get the news and facts in the one place, to be able to present our readers the content that we publish
at Tecseek Technology. Now, we can't help but feel that we have been ripped off of all the progress and ease-of-use that News offered. All the
advantages and gains that it has provided for news aggregation and all the giant leaps forward that News provided have now been lost - due to a simple
yet effective update rolled out by Google.

As a result of the latest flawed updates, we have decided there is simply too much functionality lost and the reduction of user control required for
the service to meet our need is no longer present. Whilst our office still uses Google for our email services, we have officially dropped Google News as
our news aggregation platform.

Our decision to drop it was not taken lightly and has been more of a frustration. Google News was a vital service and it's very disappointing that
Google did not roll out the updates whilst still allowing the user to have the same level of effective control over their news content, as before.
Usually, we embrace changes by Google as their changes are usually useful, necessary and genuinely provide efficiency improvements. Sadly, Google has
let down their users on this occasion. For us, it has let us down so much that we made the decision to drop the service altogether.

June 19, 2017 | Debian 9.0.0 (Stretch) Review

Debian 9.0.0 (Stretch) has made its way into public hands. Tecseek Technology has taken a look at the release. We usually find Debian
releases to be quite boring. Yes, it's a brilliant base to provide other distribution developers a platform to build upon. Notably, Ubuntu
being one of our favorites. But Debian in its raw form feels quite lacklustre. The release of Stretch is no different.

Don't be put off by our rather pessimistic perspective. It's a finely polished product, there is no doubt on that. Yet it just feels so
naked. Installation is fast and matches that of more popular mainstream distributions. Red Hat's Fedora distribution is probably the first
that comes to our minds when we think of fast installation. Debian comes in at a close second. Installation is easy and very efficient. But
it's the follow-up configuration which will consume most of your time and hold most of your attention. You still need to make a quick change
to the APT configuration file to get updates working post-installation. And we still find that display drivers are limited in Debian which
resulted in us having a very limited display resolution. This has always been a major point of frustration for us with Debian. This release
has that same frustration.

Overall, it's a stable release with no major problems that we can determine. There are some obvious niggles though. Lack of proper support
for display drivers is one. LibreOffice launcher is present in the XFCE Application Menu is two. We find this quite strange considering that
LibreOffice is not even installed in Stretch, by default. XFCE is the only graphical desktop environment offered in the default
graphical installation. If you were to be a little more crafty with your installation method, you could easily enable some online
repositories and pull in a new desktop environment for installation. But we took the lazy option and just installed with XFCE.

If you want a stable Linux distribution which commands your attention for customization, then you will enjoy Debian 9.0.0 (Stretch). It
does demand your attention. But if you prefer a more complete Linux distribution where everything is installed for you and you don't have to
spend too much time adding a whole bunch of software post-installation, then we recommend looking at one of the big four mainstream
distributions as it's most likely what you're seeking for desktop Linux. Debian on the server is where it really shines. Perhaps not so
much on the desktop.

March 1, 2017 | Is Facebook Killing Snapchat One App at a Time?

In its early beginnings, Snapchat was a unique kind of app. I guess you could say it was 'revolutionary', although we do despise
using that term which has become so synonymous when used in relation to Apple. At the time Snapchat was developed, it took some time
to find its feet for mainstream adoption. However, it had the advantage that there was nothing comparable.

The giants of social media, Facebook and Twitter, were still observers to what kind of threat Snapchat could possibly pose to their
market share dominance. It was not until late 2012 heading into 2013 that Snapchat began to really gain traction and a 'following'.
Then in the years that followed right up until present, Snapchat (deservedly) forged its way into the category of mainstream apps and
that friendly little yellow Snap icon would be found on many smartphones, sitting next to the icons of Facebook and Twitter that you
now find on most people's smartphones.

Facebook is long considered the behemoth of social media, closely followed by Twitter. Google+ is worthy of a mention with its various
attempts at breaking into the sector. But let's be realistic - Google+ has failed to make any significant impact on the user base of
Facebook and Twitter. But we're certainly not stating that Google+ is a bad service. Because it is not. It's important to understand that
Facebook and Twitter both have different market focus and are constantly evolving to adapt to consumer demand for new services. While
Twitter was a bit more complacent and didn't feel the same level of market threat from Snapchat, Facebook was feeling the heat or perhaps
could see the potential of Snapchat if its development path was drastically overhauled.

It was late 2013 when the Wall Street Journal reported that Snapchat had turned down an acquisition offer from Facebook, of US $3
billion. Reports from various news agencies began to fluctuate the final offer figure and we witnessed reports of Facebook offering amounts
between $1 billion to $3.5 billion. Despite the unconfirmed final figure of Facebook's offer, it proved what many analysts were thinking -
Facebook was feeling threatened. Fast forward to late 2016 to right now and take a look at the feature set that Facebook has launched across
the company's portfolio. FB Messenger, Instagram and the most recent update to WhatsApp have all had features included which blatantly copy
the features and functions of Snapchat. Carbon copy!

This much can not be denied. It has been a major kick in the guts for Snapchat and despite the company still increasing its user base
(statistics from 2016 report on average 150-160 million daily users) questions must be asked about how much longer the company can keep
increasing its user base under the current software's design and feature set which on its current development path, seems limited in scope.
Snapchat is limited in functionality. Its core functions remain the base of the product and everything is kind of built around this core.
This is evident by its user interface and navigation gestures.

Snapchat has been criticized many times for its complicated navigation and lack of instructions of how to use it, for new users.
Admittedly, it can be a little strange to navigate at times as it departs from what most people would consider normal navigation and
gestures. It is sometimes much too difficult to discover how to perform the simplest of tasks and is an issue that the development team are
yet to figure out how to overcome or improve.

Facebook is full steam ahead with its all-out assault on Snapchat. But it's not just the feature copying that Facebook is rolling out
across its software, it's the tweaks it adds to these features which makes it work. Sometimes, we find that you can achieve the same
(often much better) results using these 'Snapchat-like' or 'Story' implementations in FB Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp than what would
otherwise prove very cumbersome and slow using Snapchat. Keeping all of the above in mind, combined with the market power of Facebook, its
ability to make life difficult for its rivals and powerful access to developer resources, you can't help but wonder how much longer Snapchat
can resist the competition in this relatively niche arena of social media.

When you have the world's most powerful social media company attacking your product, software and features and rolling it out across
their entire software portfolio - it's in your face and can't be ignored. If you're working at Snapchat you have to begin to wonder whether
your employer has a long-term future in Silicon Valley or whether the white flags will soon be raised.

We don't know. Where Snapchat has felt stale, Facebook has felt innovative. Snapchat developers need to seriously innovate their product
and find new ways to stay relevant. The ever changing trends of social media habits and consumer loyalty will ultimately decide the future
of whether Snapchat maintains its relevance in an ever increasingly challenging industry that is social media. From what we are seeing, there
are dark clouds gathering on the horizon.

February 16, 2017 | Install Spotify on Linux

Linux users seem to be the last of priority for most software makers releasing their products for our beloved operating system. There is
no technical reason behind the lack of priority given to Linux users. In many ways, our operating system is much more advanced than others.
It's a simple fact that Linux is still not yet considered mainstream, or popular. Thankfully, although Spotify who run Linux don't experience
quite the same amount of support that Windows, Mac OS, iOS and Android users might enjoy, we are grateful the company does at least provide
a Linux client package for Spotify.

The packages provided for Linux are supportive for Debian and Ubuntu installations only. So if you head to the downloads page hoping to
find a RPM package file, then you're going to be bitterly disappointed.

To install the Spotify client in Linux, you need to use the following instructions carefully.

First, we need to install the Spotify repository including the verification key. You can do this by entering the following command
inside a terminal console:

Now the repository has been added, we simply need to update our repositories and then we can proceed to install the Spotify client.
Update with the following command:

$ sudo apt-get update

Now we proceed to install Spotify for Linux:

$ sudo apt-get install spotify-client

Spotify client has now been installed successfully. To run the client, it should now be found inside your desktop application menu,
or you can simply type the following into a terminal:

$ spotify

February 12, 2017 | Time to Dump Insecure Windows XP, For Secure Linux!

We are still shocked to hear stories of people running Microsoft Windows XP as their operating system. Support, security patches and
all other updates for the operating system ceased way back in 2014. Since then, we've seen Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and the latest update which
has also categorically become Microsoft's flagship software, Windows 10.

If you have missed out on the many free upgrade offers that Microsoft were throwing out for bait to boost your system to Windows 10,
or you simply have an older system that will not run Windows 10 as good as what it runs Windows XP, then Tecseek Technology has the
solution for you.

We recommend you install a very light version of Ubuntu Linux, called Lubuntu. It's a very lightweight version of the popular Ubuntu
Linux operating system. Once installed, you will find it a nice simple replacement for your aging Windows XP system. That old clunky
system will feel new once again.

Most software you use on a daily basis is already installed in Lubuntu, leaving you very little to do post-install. We still recommend
you perform a simple update which does not take long and then you will be running a brand new operating system which is completely updated
and secure, leaving Windows XP in the history books of Microsoft.

We believe Windows XP was a very good operating system, which is why it was one of the most popular of all Windows operating systems in
the company's history (at the time of writing). But its time is up and we see absolutely no sense in continuing to condone the use of or
support users who are still running this outdated and now very insecure software. Continuing to run Windows XP through ignorance or laziness
to upgrade is the equivalent of running down the street with a terrorist flag hanging on your shoulders and cops yelling, "Let's get him".
Yes, XP has become nothing more than a target for hackers looking for easy prey.

If we still haven't convinced you to ditch Windows XP, we seriously urge you to reconsider. Before you go ahead and install Lubuntu as
your Windows XP replacement, please ensure that you backup all of your personal files and data onto an external hard disk or other means of
external storage. When you backup all your data, double check you have everything off your drive that you want saved, because the
installation of Lubuntu will completely wipe the entire drive. Also, please ensure that you unplug the backup storage device from the system
before you install Lubuntu. While technically you can leave it plugged in, we recommend you remove it to avoid any drive conflicts or
confusion when installing Lubuntu.

Once Lubuntu has been installed, you can then re-plug the external drive back in and copy your personal files and any other data onto the
new Lubuntu system.

We hope we have convinced you to install Lubuntu operating system as a replacement for your old Microsoft Windows XP system. You can now
plug in your external media that you backed up your Windows personal files on and now copy them onto the new Lubuntu system.

Linux is very secure and very simple to use. Lubuntu is the best choice for older systems as it is very lightweight on resources and is
very simple to use. Even for beginners!

We believe Nintendo may have underestimated the extent of its fans and the potential of hackers and the lengths that they will go to, to
get what they want, when it released the NES Classic Edition console.

The small console is a modern adaption of the much loved console of the 1980's and which spawned a trend that continued on well into the
1990's with the release of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, or more commonly referred to as SNES. The NES Classic Edition has a
limited selection of games pre-installed, for the retro enjoyment of a great gaming era for Nintendo.

Although Nintendo fans seemed super happy with the release of the neat little console, there was still a certain amount of discontent
among gaming circles that it was locked down by not allowing users to modify the system to play custom ROMS and adding more functionality
to this charming little beast of a box.

ROMS remain illegal in most countries, yet peculiarly remain really popular among retro gamers and are enjoyed by many by using software
emulators. Just this week, news broke out that the NES Classic Edition had been hacked and users were able to play custom ROMS that are
uploaded to the device by USB.

As we go to press, the news is spreading, technical information and instructions are being thrown around like rapid fire. Equally,
information is changing in detail at the same rapid pace as more bugs are posted and improvements being applied.

Based on the information Tecseek Technology has read, the process is quite complicated. And unless you're technically advanced and
skilled in this area, we advise that you leave this one alone. Or at least until the process becomes more streamlined and hacking methods
simplified.

From our understanding, the process involves booting the Linux-based operating system that powers the console into a special mode known
as FEL mode. It then requires you to inject ROM files into the device and make certain configuration changes for authentication. Warning
are clear - there is a very real possibility of bricking the device if the process is not performed correctly. If you're not feeling
confident, then we again strongly suggest that you avoid attempting it. You have been warned!

Nintendo has always had a loyal following. This is proven throughout the history of the company. The company has been written off many
times by gaming industry analysts. Yet somehow, Nintendo seems to reinvent itself time and time again, whilst making significant dents in
the gaming industry in the process. Its loyal following is also backed up by the many fan created and maintained websites and the myriad
of software emulators available on all computing platforms. Many of these emulators are capable of playing the original games flawlessly,
on modern computer hardware and modern gaming controllers which can have their keys mapped accordingly through the emulator.

If tried and tested is what you like, then we recommend checking out one of the popular emulators. If you want to get your hands dirty,
then by all means, go ahead and try hacking the NES Classic Edition. But you must consider the risks of bricking the device and making it
unusable. There's also the legal question - you most likely will be breaking the law. As a publishing organization, we can't condone illegal
activity. However, we advise that you make your own judgment of what is illegal and what is ethically acceptable and who will really be at
harm by your actions. One thing remains certain - interest in retro gaming remains strong and interest in Nintendo never ceases to surprise
us. Even in the era of gaming of the 1980's and 90's that you thought was long dead, has been revived once again.

December 5, 2016 | Fedora 25 Released - Look Down and Keep Walking

The past few months have seen the latest updates to the big three mainstream Linux distributions of Ubuntu, OpenSUSE and now Fedora 25.
This will be the last Linux distribution that we will be taking a look at for 2016. But Tecseek Technology plans to check out many more as
part of our publications for 2017. Briefly looking ahead into next year we will be attempting to keep up with all the mainstream Linux
releases, as well as taking a look at some of the more not so mainstream and obscure releases that probably don't really get the attention
that they deserve. There is some incredible Linux development work going on out there in the wild, much of it goes unnoticed. We feel more
recognition needs to be given to the third-party and sometimes 'better' options that are available. But bringing us back to the present,
let's take a look at what we have right in front of us right now - Fedora 25 or simply referred to as F25.

We have taken a look at the default GNOME release and the XFCE release. Both of which are technically the same, yet just running a
different desktop environment. As is always the case with Fedora, we see some of the most recent software and packages included. Not quite
as bleeding edge as Fedora's Rawhide release, but still pretty on the edge regardless.

Fedora 25 follows on this tradition with a Linux kernel 4.8.6 on a fresh installation. Desktop environments we tested were GNOME 3.22.1
and XFCE 4.12. GNOME was just the usual offering provided by Fedora, nothing to really market that differs from any other release. We
found GNOME performance slightly disappointing. There was obvious lag and in desktop use the responsiveness was just not up to par with the
GNOME desktop components that make up OpenSUSE 42.2 Leap. We tried XFCE to find that performance improved a lot. This much should be obvious
though, as it is a much lighter desktop environment than its GNOME counter-part.

We are going to sidetrack for a second and put it out there that we are finding XFCE to be a little boring. There's no innovation and
development versions have stagnated. We understand it aims to provide a fast flexible setup, yet the same can be said from the GNOME 2
fork, now known as MATE. Despite MATE aiming to remain a lightweight alternative the developers have still managed to keep its desktop
innovative and constantly updated. It's sad to see XFCE sitting out in the cold, freezing a slow death. We don't mean to sound so negative,
as it's not all bad news as the project is not dead. But we would like to see some real attention and innovation get put into this once
reputable package in the very near future. Otherwise, we feel its uptake will remain limited and only decrease over time and becoming a
desktop that will be used by only a very niche bunch of users.

All of this is no reflection on F25, however we feel that considering we did test the XFCE version of F25, it is worth mentioning to
those of you that might consider following our test path. Your desktop will remainpretty ordinary and looking a little dated, to say the
least. However, you have that edge of speed to boast about. That's something.

Installation runs just fine. Nothing has really changed from previous version of Anaconda and installation was completed quite quickly.
We still maintain that Fedora remains one of the most consistently fast full Linux distributions to install, that we regularly test
anyway.

Post-installation, we were greeted with the usual Fedora screen that we were kind of expecting. Nothing fancy, just a desktop waiting
for the user to do something. Unfortunately, things went downhill for us from this point. We immediately updated both F25 test systems
using DNF at the terminal console level. Download of the updates proceeded just fine and the packages seemed to install without any
indicative issues. Everything seemed to go as planned and routine, really.

Then when we attempted to reboot into the updated Linux kernel 4.8.10, we were greeted with a no-boot black screen. Nothing.
Our system was dead. Initially, we thought it might be the updated kernel and thought something had gone awry during its update. So we
attempted to boot back into the original 4.8.6 kernel which we knew worked prior to our update. Sadly, we entered the same no-boot black
screen.

This is alarming and equally alarming when the recovery console can not be reached either. That system was absolutely useless and
inaccessible in its current state.

We proceeded to try the same process on our F25 system running XFCE. We updated our fresh install using DNF and rebooted into the new
kernel. Success. The XFCE system had no problems and would successfully boot into either kernel.

Out of pure determination and part-effort to discover where the root cause of the problem was, we proceeded to setup a new GNOME
system from scratch. We went through the entire procedure again then updated the system using DNF. Upon reboot into the updated kernel,
we were able to replicate the same no-boot black screen. Nothing had changed. It confirms that our issues were not one off instances,
can easily be replicated and proves that there is an update in there somewhere which is affecting all installed kernels, making them
unbootable and spreading across the entire system. This is serious and should not go ignored.

To throw a third scenario into the mix, we upgraded an existing and fully updated and functioning Fedora 24 system. The upgrade was
simple and fast. It was all too easy. So easy that we don't really have anything more to say about it. All settings and configurations
of the pre-existing user accounts was maintained and all packages were updated to the latest 25 core. Extra points for the effort put
into making system upgrades so easy between build versions.

F25 is a pretty disappointing release with equally disappointing performance. Fedora loyalists will most likely find themselves
upgrading out of simple routine and eventual requirement to do so. However, if you're looking for something fresh for a new system,
then we recommend you take a look at OpenSUSE 42.2 Leap instead.

OpenSUSE is much more stable and much more predictable. Installing and running F25 feels like walking a Linux tightrope with no
safety net. We found ourselves literally holding our breath way too many times, just hoping that what we were doing would work.
If it did work, could it be done a second time with the same result? Sadly, we were let down on too many occasions and in a big way.
We are just not confident enough to be recommending this release to anyone as there is just much better options available without
the stress you will most likely endure with F25. We were really impressed with F23 and 24. But absolutely not impressed with F25.
It resembles that awkward experience of approaching someone you know but don't like in the shopping mall, when you see them you
deliberately look the other way and pretend you never seen them at all. When you see Fedora 25 coming your way, best to look the
other way and keep walking.

November 11, 2016 | Linux Mint is Safe and Secure

There seems a certain amount of paranoia that has ensued since the revelation of the hacking of Linux Mint servers,
which resulted in specific ISO images of the operating system being replaced with hacked versions which contained a
backdoor.

If you're part of the Linux paranoia group that I speak of, then please limit your paranoia to yourself as it goes
unjustified.

The paranoia has spawned from over-hyped media reports on the hacking and the circulation of the ISOs which contain
the backdoor. It's important to understand that this kind of illegitimate web activity occurs all the time and it is
not limited in case. Most of the time going unreported or deliberately not publicly revealed.

The team at Linux Mint did all the right things and immediately shut down its website, with the exception of its
Blog which was used to notify its users of what had occurred. The team and developers were completely transparent of
all details at all times. To the best of our understanding, the team knew what exactly had occurred, when it occurred,
what specific ISOs were affected and where the backdoor was located in the ISO filesystem.

The team needs to be commended for its quick action, notification to users and its efforts of transparency. Attacks
against Linux Mint, its operating system and spreading false rumors about the quality of the operating system and the
project's team members are completely unjustified and outright unfair for the amount of hardwork and effort that goes
into developing and producing this high-quality Linux release.

Staff at Tecseek Technology have witnessed Linux advocates publicly stating that they will "never use" or recommend
Linux Mint anymore, as a result of the hack. The negative comments continue, with claims being made that the operating
system is "no longer safe to use". But it doesn't stop there, with more concerning comments being made by Linux users
saying they will never use a "Ubuntu-based" Linux again. Finally, at the extreme end of the scale and some of the more
silly comments stating that Linux interest and potential uptake as a whole will "suffer" as a result of the hack, thanks
to Linux Mint.

Let us be clear and put the whole scenario into its true perspective. Linux Mint is perfectly safe to download,
install and use. The hacking of the project's servers has now been resolved and all images have been verified via MD5
signature verification methods, deemed safe and have not been tampered with in any way. Any information being spread
that does not conform to the true facts can be misleading and verges on conspiracy theory and should be ignored.

I am a seasoned Linux user myself (Editor) - a veteran some might say. I can personally assure people that Linux
Mint is perfectly safe. It is a top-quality Linux operating system based on Ubuntu, which also remains top-quality.

Linux advocates need to understand the core facts of the situation, move on and continue to do what we do best -
advocate for free and open-source software and Linux. We can not let events like this deter us from our advocacy.
Instead, we need to understand what occurred, how it occurred, what can be done to prevent this from occurring in the
future and make efforts to assist the Linux eco-system in achieving our goals rather than putting our tails between our
legs and running scared yelling "Linux has been hacked. It's not safe to use.".

Such comments and statements are simply false, reckless and unjustified.

November 9, 2016 | Brief Introduction to Sed

There is a really neat software package that is very powerful, yet so many *nix users are still unaware of its existence.
It's called sed.

sed was developed by a Computer Scientist named Lee E. McMahon, who worked for Bell Labs from 1963-89, with most
technologists knowing him for his work on early versions of Unix. McMahon has made contributions to a range of open-source
software projects, notably grep and sed. He passed away in 1989.

sed is described as a stream editor and has been touted as a somewhat successor to grep and were both developed in the
same year of 1974. However, it remains true that despite being over 40 years old, both are still being used and maintained,
today. sed is written in the C programming language.

sed has been referenced as an early inspiration for the scripting programming language, Perl. This reference comes from
its ability of using / for pattern matching and s/// for substitution. This was not original to sed and instead was a feature
of ed, a line editor developed several years earlier in the late 1960s.

When AWK was developed several years later and when combined with the powerful functions of sed, the software for advanced
text processing via the console became widely adopted in the field of computer science. sed has been developed further by the
additions it received by GNU sed. There is also super-sed which adds Perl compatible regular expressions. Interestingly, there
exists a reverse engineered version called minised, which was originally the work of Eric S. Raymond. He no longer maintains
the package, yet it is still maintained by other developers. minised was a simplified form of sed and used by the GNU Project,
until a more feature-rich version could be developed by GNU developers. Despite its lack of features, it was said to be very
fast and memory resource friendly. minised is used with Minix.

sed is a powerful editor and processor which perform many advanced functions that are still unmatched by other software.
Many other software developers have aimed to achieve many of the same functions that is achieved by sed. This has resulted in a
multitude of small packages for text and string processing at console level, each with a specific focus on their intended usage.
The advanced abilities and raw power at the fingertips of *nix users, thanks to sed, are often what makes people overlook it in
favor of more simpler packages which are sometimes much easier to use due to smaller focus on a particular task.

Sometimes an important feature that can be overlooked by sed, is its scripting ability. Using sed scripting can often be a
nice way to simplify advanced syntax. As an example, you can write a simple sed script in the same way you would a regular Bash
or Perl script, starting with:

#!/bin/sed -f

Then just save the file with a suitable file name:

myscript.sed

Then the sed script can easily be executed directly, by running it from the console.

If you haven't got around to trying out sed, then install it onto your system and try it out now. It can be used as an
advanced, versatile yet flexible string editor and also a powerful scripting package. The more I've been using sed, the more I
have realized its raw power underneath and what it has the potential to unleash, with just a few simple lines of code. Its power
and complicated simplicity (does that make sense?) pays tribute to how this small piece of software has survived for 40+ years.
If you're a *nix developer, then having sed installed on your system is an absolute must.

November 9, 2016 | Compile CipherShed on Linux

Anyone interested in cyber security should be ready to learn about CipherShed, the next big thing in on-the-fly data
encryption. This open-source disk encryption program is available across almost all major operating system platforms
(Microsoft Windows, Mac OS, Linux and even DragonFly BSD). However, it's important to mention that as of today,
CipherShed still doesn't have a compiled Linux binary package for installation. On the other hand, seeing as this
platform is still technically under development, chances are that it will become available in the near future.
According to StatCounter for June 2016, Windows has more users than all the rest combined several times over. But in
this guide, we will mostly focus on Linux users.

The program itself is quite promising in both its efficiency and user friendliness, so it probably won't be long
until it becomes industry standard. With this in mind, here are a few guidelines on how to successfully set up this
program, as well as use it with maximum efficiency.

Even though we've already mentioned this, CipherShed is an open-source program, which means that anyone can study,
tinker or distribute it for any purpose [within the provisions of its distributed license]. It's also free, both as
in free-of-charge and free speech. All you need to do in order to download the file is go to www.ciphershed.org and
then click on the link to the latest release of the program.

Builds for Linux and Mac OS are still unavailable, which means that the users of these platforms will have to find
a way to compile it on their own. Also, 64bit editions of Windows Vista (in some rare cases, even 32bit) don't allow
this program to run without an appropriate certificate, which CipherShed unfortunately doesn't possess. It's also
important to mention that CipherShed is compatible with Ubuntu, Debian and many other similar derivatives. This
includes: Peppermint, Linux Lite, Deepin, Kwheezy, Crunchbang, SparkyLinux, Linux Mint, Pinguy OS, Elementary OS and
last but not the least, important LXLE.

The installation on any of these platforms is pretty much the same. The most unfortunate thing about Linux setup is
that it has to be compiled directly from source code. The first thing you will need to do in order to get started is to
secure the pinentry dependencies. Luckily, this is not that difficult and all you need to do is download gtk2 packages.
You can easily install them by running this command in a terminal console:

After this is set up and done, you need to download the CipherShed Git source code, which you can do by typing in the
following:

$ cd ~/
$ sudo git clone https://github.com/CipherShed/CipherShed.git

Next, you need to find a way to compile CipherShed and you can do it by using following command:

$ cd CipherShed/src
$ make
$ LIBS=\"-ldl\" make

After you have all of this covered, you might also want to ensure easier use, which can be done with a simple
symlink:

$ sudo ln -sf ~/CipherShed/src/Main/ciphershed /usr/bin/ciphershed

In the end, if you eventually decide to remove the program from your computer, all you need to type:

$ sudo rm -r ~/CipherShed /usr/bin/ciphershed

After you have it installed, to start CipherShed you just need to open the terminal console, type in its name
and press ENTER. It's that simple!

The next thing you will want to learn is how to create and use CipherShed containers and this part is extremely
simple (at least when compared to the installation). All you have to do is follow these few simple steps.

When the program opens, you first need to click on the Create Volume button or the button "C" on your keyboard.
After this, enter the Volume Creation Wizard, where you need to choose where you want the volume to be created and
then click on the Next button. You will also have the option of creating a standard or hidden volume you can choose
from and, when the choice is made, all you need to do is click Next, again. Now, the wizard will present you with
the option to Select File and then navigate towards the file you want encrypted. Here you will also have the
opportunity to name the file. Next, you will be asked to choose the encryption algorithm; if you are not familiar
with what they offer, the safest choice would be to opt for AES. In the next section of the process, you will be
asked several questions regarding the volume size, the password and the volume format. After this is done, the volume
will be successfully created.

In order to access the files you have encrypted, all you need to do is mount them and enter the password in the
prompt window.

As you can see, encryption alone is no more complicated than with any other similar program. Even though Linux
users still don't have the convenience of a compiled package for installation, going through a bit more trouble to
compile the file and install it from the source is always worth it. According to most users of CipherShed, this
program is a worthy successor of long since abandoned but never forgotten TrueCrypt, which was actually very much
respected among cryptologists as one of the best encryption tools available and was used to encrypt the original
leaked documents from former NSA Contractor, Edward Snowden.

September 28, 2016 | Firefox - The Power Under the Hood

If there's one thing that nerds love, it's statistics and streams of verbose output. The verbose part is probably
more familiar with the Unix and Linux fellow among the crowd. There's a certain amount of unexplained mystique about
verbose output that makes us feel almighty and powerful. It makes us feel in control. It gives us full understanding
of what exactly is happening at that moment, often in real-time. Then we get to probably the most boring part of any
modern desktop computer - the web browser. Let's admit it, when it comes to web browsers they're not exactly the most
exciting and rich generator which seeds nerd conversation. Google Chrome users (and Chromium) are blessed with its
built-in Task Manager. Whilst Firefox has a high amount of users, it also has a slightly incorrect and unfair
reputation as being the browser that doesn't have a built-in Task Manager like Chrome, therefore it is not as
powerful. Well, we disagree to a certain extent. Firefox is much more powerful and verbose than what people realize.
The problem is, it is just made a little more difficult to find its included juicy goodness. But we've done the hard
work for you, dug deep inside and found the inner sanctum of Firefox's workings. And because we're a friendly bunch
here in the office, we're going to share our findings with our readers. Read ahead to find out more.

about:config

The first thing to learn about some of Firefox's advanced features under the hood is the about:config utility. It
gives you access to all the customization options that change the default behavior of Firefox. But be very aware,
inside contains much power to improve your browsing experience, but it has equal power to absolutely mess your
configuration to a point of non-function. So please take care and do not tinker with anything unless you're absolutely
100% certain about what it affects.

about:memory

This utility will provide you with a detailed summary and output of Firefox's memory usage. Be warned that the output
given in this utility is extremely complex and confusing. Anyone short of being in possession of a masters degree in
computer science will most likely fail to understand a majority of the verbose given here. But it basically allows for
verbose reporting on memory usage of Firefox. We could see this being mightily useful for Firefox Developers when
debugging new builds, as the memory information gathered and reported by this
utility is truly staggering.

about:addons-memory

This utility actually requires the installation of a small add-on. Once installed, you simply enter the command in the
navigation bar. It allows the user to view memory usage of installed add-ons. You can View, Disable and even Uninstall
add-ons. It can be useful to see what add-ons are actually using (and in some cases, hogging) all your memory. According
to the official add-ons page on the Mozilla website, it is described as experimental. Although we can confirm that it is
solid and working just fine, despite the negative comments from some users who seem to have experienced some issues. We
have no complaints and recommend you give it a shot as it's a nice complement to the default set of built-in utilities.

about:performance

The performance utility is a useful tool that provides simple, yet focused feedback about the performance of installed
add-ons and open web pages. The performance feature can be very useful when Firefox slows down and you wish to pinpoint the
culprit of which add-on is causing the unexpected slowdown. Sometimes it can be a misbehaving extension or a website you
have open inside Firefox. This tool allows you to disable the extension causing the slowdown or other problem or
Close/Reload the Tab which is controlling the website causing you grief. Firefox used to be notorious for memory leaks and
unexplained random slow-downs. Recent builds have improved greatly, but it does still happen on occasion. This utility
could be your savior if it happens to you.

about:healthreport

Last and probably the most important utility under the hood is the Firefox Health Report. It's the built-in tool which
is used to measure and display Firefox browser statistics of performance and stability, recorded and generated over the
browsers lifetime. The statistics provided can be useful for analysis and data feedback. Or in the case of developers,
essential for debugging. The statistics gathered are also shared with Mozilla Firefox developers, which provides essential
feedback on user performance and stability. The data is shared with Mozilla by default, but if you're privacy conscious
data sharing for Health Report can be disabled. Other useful data reported is your Firefox build version number and update
channel. Also, the number of extensions and plugins installed.

Conclusion

From the perspective of a software developer, we still have criticism aimed towards both browsers. We need an option to
launch Chrome/Chromium and Firefox from the command-line with a verbose argument. There are limited options for this at
current and we'd like to see more attention paid to this in future builds. We understand Chrome/Chromium is a little better
and has some option for launching with verbose logging, but Firefox has nothing that we are aware of. If you know of a way
to do this, then we'd love to hear from you. Shoot us an email and let us know.

Armed with the above information and knowledge we have been able to provide you today, hopefully you now understand that
Firefox is just as powerful as Chrome/Chromium, when it comes to browser statistics and data reporting for analysis. Have a
poke around and see what you find useful. You may even surprise yourself and be hypnotized by how interesting verbose output
and data statistics reporting by your boring old web browser that you thought done nothing but load Google.

August 8, 2016 | Silicon Safe Device - Can it be Trusted as Safe?

In 2014-2015, we witnessed a large amount of database hacks which eventuated in the release of many personal details
being dumped onto the internet. The scary thing about the hacks is their frequency is increasing and to see such massive
scale hacks becoming all too common. We must not be complacent.

It seems that British company Silicon Safe may have developed the answer that the database security sector may be
searching for, with the development of a new security device which stores passwords in a separate encrypted hardware box,
off the main network.

In theory, the concept sounds great. How it functions in practice will really prove whether the device is up to the
task of keeping client data safe and away from increasingly advanced hackers.

Silicon Safe company Founders, Dr. Will Harwood and Roger Gross in a recent interview with BBC stated that the concept
came from an "academic exercise", as they were unsatisfied with existing database security technology and stated that
current technology was increasingly "proving ineffective\, according to Dr. Harwood. The concept proved itself in a
controlled academic environment, so it was decided to take the idea to a commercial venture.

The device is built-up from the hardware level. The device does not run an operating system like computers, rather the
underlying software that runs the device is hard-coded into the hardware chip itself - firmware. According to Dr. Harwood,
this eliminates the potential for the device to be affected from traditional software bugs and security holes. The Founders
of Silicon Safe claim that their method of hard-coding the operating system into the hardware chip makes the device
impossible to crack, using commonly used hacking methods.

The key to the device's security is its small hard-coded operating system, which was developed in approximately 10,000
lines of source code. The source code used in traditional software methods of storing secure passwords in database format
exceed this by far. Silicon Safe claim that this gives the device an advantage over traditional database methods because the
code focuses on only one task - securing the data. There is no log-in credentials required and also no way to log-in using a
common username/password method via a web-interface and the system has no display output or graphical interface. Tecseek
Technology has been unable to get information on the exact hardware specifications as they are kept secret.

Dr. Harwood claims that hackers can not access the device via the internet and only once they have physical access to the
device, could they begin to even attempt to gain access. Therefore, extra security features were added to prevent this. Dr.
Harwood details that after four attempts at unauthorized access, the device notifies the system administrator.

At a hefty price tag of $100,000, Silicon Safe is certainly not targeting the small-business end of the market or the
general consumer. The target market will be financial and enterprise sector. With such a large price tag, we remain somewhat
skeptical that the device will appeal to even that end of the market. Especially when large firms remain confident enough
that their data is already secure, using traditional software and hardware methods. Although we do like the concept and hope
it spawns a new open-source variety based on the concept of external encrypted hardware devices kept off main networks.

Nevertheless, we do hope that Silicon Safe find a market. The concept is great and gives an entire new meaning to data and
password security. The company states that the device fits in with current server rack technology and infrastructure,
including ease-of-integration with existing network technology with very few changes required.

Silicon Safe has been trialled at some large UK companies, including a financial institution and a telecommunications firm.
But it seems we are not the only skeptics of the device's capabilities to secure data and passwords. According to the BBC,
Professor Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey went as far as claiming that the way the device functions will make IT
departments in large firms lazy. Professor Woodward went on to state that he believes system administrators should know and
understand what they are doing and using a closed-device such as the Silicon Safe, which is engineered by one person and where
the administrators don't completely understand the technical details and operations of the device, is not recommended and can
therefore not be classified as secure. Tecseek Technology is concerned that according to the Silicon Safe website, Ashley
Madison is one of the company's clients. We must point out that the Ashley Madison hack was one of the largest database hacks
to eventuate in 2015, with many gigabytes of database and personal details dumped onto the internet. Below the Ashley Madison
(and other company logos), the tagline proudly touts "Companies that may have benefited from Silicon:SAFE's Password Protect".
The key-word in the tagline is "may have".

Ashley Madison did not benefit from Silicon Safe. It's somewhat of a false claim, on the company's website. This is a
concern and we urge caution towards trusting this device.

Despite the skepticism expressed from Tecseek Technology and others, Silicon Safe is out to prove its worth as the company
holds a "hacker challenge". The challenge was to access 100 encrypted passwords held inside the device. Silicon Safe states
that over 2.5 millions hacking attempts have been made, yet not a single attempt has been able to crack the device and access
the encrypted data.

July 19, 2016 | Taking Better Screenshots in Ubuntu

It was just two days ago that we seen a post on social media from popular Ubuntu website, OMGUbuntu, demonstrating a useful piece
of software which makes taking screenshots and uploading them to the internet much more automated and hassle-free.

It is called Imgur-Screenshot. As Tecseek Technology is involved with lots of technology and software, taking screenshots is a daily
task which can sometimes be a little cumbersome. So anything that makes the task a little more easier through automation and less
user-interaction, is naturally going to grab our attention.

Upon visiting the website, we were was presented with an interesting piece which described what Imgur-Screenshot was and how it worked.
Today, Tecseek Technology is taking a closer look and to give you a quick demonstration of what it can do to help you make taking screenshots
and uploading them to the internet much easier.

It's important to understand that the entire package runs from the included shell script. Imgur-Screenshot is open-source, licensed
under The MIT License and can be downloaded from GitHub. Once you have downloaded the package archive, you simply need to extract it to your
/home directory.

It does require a couple of dependencies to run properly. These can easily be installed on Ubuntu using your terminal console using the
following command:

$ sudo apt-get install curl grep libnotify-bin scrot xclip

The dependencies you have installed are very small and should only take under one minute to download and install. Once complete, navigate
to the img-screenshot-master directory. Our suggestion was to put it into your /home directory, however we have chosen to place it in
/home/Desktop.

We need to give the script permission to execute. This can be done by simply entering the following command:

chmod +x imgur-screenshot.sh

Now we are ready to use Imgur-Screenshot. When you run the script, you will get a mouse cursor which allows you to select the section of
the screen that you wish to capture. Once you have captured your selection, the script will automatically perform the following actions for
you:

The best thing about the script is the fact it's open-source and developers have the freedom to modify the script to their own preferences,
in accordance to The MIT License. It's a simple shell script, so modifications are as easy as opening the script file in your favorite
code editor and making the necessary changes to customize it to your own preferences.

We took the time to add some custom aliases to our Bash configuration file. We use scrot for some screenshot capturing, yet
we'll be using Imgur-Screenshot for other capturing. It really just depends what you want to do with eventual image that is captured. However,
aliases will not suit everyone and we encourage you to add your own aliases based on how you capture and use your own screenshots. You have
all the freedom in the world to modify the software and its actions and how it is executed to function. It's open-source and completely free.
Enjoy it, embrace it and take full advantage of it to customize it and perhaps learn something new in the process.

January 27, 2016 | Visual Studio on Linux, Now a Reality

Linux users are truly blessed with the sheer amount of code editors that we have at our disposal for our programming and
coding requirements. But we all have our favorites and tend to stick with the same packages for our work. Or a dedicated
collection of packages, at the very least. There was a time when I did use Microsoft Windows for software development.
When you're using Windows as your software development environment, you're most likely familiar with Visual Studio. You might
even use it yourself!

Many years ago, I migrated to Linux. At the time, I was forced to depart from my beloved Visual Studio package in favor of
free and open-source alternatives. After many attempts of many different editors I settled for Emacs. These days, I still use
and prefer Emacs and is definitely one software application that I have open on my desktop almost all the time, on a daily
basis. It's my go-to tool of choice. Although I remain content with Emacs, accompanied by a selection of other applications,
there is a place in my programming heart that will always have a soft-spot for Visual Studio.

So as a Linux programmer, what options do we have for a viable Visual Studio alternative? Up until December 2015 we didn't
have much choice. There were options to explore for running Visual Studio through Wine, but all methods remained tedious and
resulted in poor application performance. Let's be honest, it could not be taken serious. Times have changed. We now have a
native Visual Studio application for Linux, called Visual Studio Code. Does it fill the void we've experienced for so many
years? Let's find out.

If you're looking for a full-featured Visual Studio package on Linux, then Visual Studio Code is not for you. It is not
what it's designed to be. If you want a more full-featured package, then you will probably be better off taking a look at
something like Geany or Atom. Both of which we recommend as good code editors and development environments. Visual Studio
Code is designed to be a minimal code editor which has just enough features to get the job completed, yet stay out of your
way. It's a perfect blend and absolutely achieves exactly this.

There is limited syntax-highlighting, syntax detection for the most common used programming languages and split screen
code editing.

Heavy coding inside Visual Studio Code is an absolute breeze and it's not hard to find yourself wired in to those long
sessions that go deep into the hours of the night, usually accompanied by piles of junk food and a nice collection of red
bull cans.

Digging a little deeper into the menus and you will find yourself a few extra goodies. Your usual suspects of
Cut/Copy/Paste and Find/Find in Files options are all present. No grand surprises here. There is also Zoom options to make
your code bigger. I guess this might only be a feature for the vision impaired. But if your eye-sight is good, you're
probably not going to be using this feature. But extras points given for the accessibility options.

You can use the Full Screen option to make Visual Studio Code consume your entire screen real estsate. This can also be
activated by pressing F11, which is a common key-binding found in many software programs for this feature. And then the same
key to deactivate and return to normal window mode.

The color scheme of the interface is completely customizable to suit you own retina. Light or dark themes can be applied
as default. I found the Dark (default color theme) the most suited for my eyes throughout day and night editing sessions.
This will be personal preference and will differ for everyone. Simply choose one that works for you and allows you to work
for extended periods of time without eye strain or having to squint your eyes
from too much screen glare due to white eye burn.

There are a bunch of keyboard shortcuts which can be customized. But I will be honest here, I am not a massive user of
keyboard shortcuts. So this was of little value to me. Some programmers love shortcuts and is literally built into their
coding habits and work-flow. Those users will love the option to customize the
shortcuts in Visual Studio Code.

I find the most useful feature in Visual Studio Code is split screen editing. You can literally open two different files
at once and work on them simultaneously in the editor. This is also available in most other editors already. But it's great
that Visual Studio Code has decided to also include the feature too.

A little known feature that you could be forgiven for overlooking is the Developer Tools. At first it can be a little
confusing to use and unless you're editing HTML files inside Visual Studio Code, you will not find this feature all that
useful. Loading up some HTML files made the Developer Tools very handy. It is similar to what you will find in Chrome and
Firefox web browsers. Basically, if you're a HTML or web developer, you will appreciate these extra little goodies.

Visual Studio Code does not have an automated installer at the moment. The package can be simply downloaded, extracted
and run from its own directory. This might sound difficult, but it's not. For this Review I was using Linux Mint and decided
to get a little more crafty and extracted it to a directory inside the ~/ directory and then added a custom launcher icon on
both my Desktop and Panel. Therefore, I can launch Visual Studio Code just like any other package installed on my system.

Visual Studio Code has it all. I had no problem with editing inside the application at anytime. It is a nice addition to
my already crowded list of source code editing programs. The fact remains, I have started using Visual Studio Code equal to
my use of Emacs. That has got to count for something. It tells me that it must be good. If an Editor can hold its own up to
a package like Emacs, then it's worthy of maintaining its place on anyone's hard drive.

January 16, 2016 | A Positive Open-Source Vision for Microsoft?

It was at the JSConf Last Call event, last December when Microsoft's Gaurav Seth announced the core engine which powers
Microsoft's latest web browser, Edge, would be open-sourced. The engine known as Chakra is a Javascript-based engine and has
been released on GitHub and is referred to as ChakraCore.

While the announcement of releasing the code to was one major surprise coming from Microsoft, there was another announcement
which surprised some software developers even more - plans for porting ChakraCore to Linux are in the pipeline. In its current
form, ChakraCore can be compiled with relative ease for Windows 7 SP1 or above using Visual Studio 2013/2015, providing that
C++ support is installed. Microsoft has gone one step further by calling on the development community for help and suggestions
on what platforms they would like ChakraCore developed for.

A clear priority for the road-map is to get the engine developed to function natively on Linux, we see no reason that the
same can not be achieved for Android. Developing ChakraCore for iOS is probably forward thinking a little too far. At least a
development build supported by Microsoft. However now the code is out in the wild and released under the MIT License there is no
genuine reason that no one in the open-source software development community can not develop the engine for Apple devices. Even
if we were to witness a build solely for Android devices, it would be a major step towards entering a wider world in the mobile
device margin and away from the somewhat niche market of Windows Mobile that Microsoft currently enjoys.

Under the leadership of its relatively new CEO, Satya Nadella, Microsoft has really changed their view of open-source and
freedom in software and embraced Linux. The latest decision to release the source code of ChakraCore displays Microsoft's genuine
intention to not only support free software, but specifically free and open-source software development. Releasing even small
amounts of code or projects is its contribution.

Microsoft is no stranger to the open-source community and it has previously been recognized for making many code contributions
to the Linux kernel, both officially as a company and through the work of its employees developing in their free time away from
the office. Then in 2015 Microsoft embraced Ubuntu Linux as a platform, revealing that the company uses the operating system to
function many parts of its cloud and networking software, simply because it made sense to use existing open-source software which
could easily be tailored to their needs rather than developing and maintaining their own from scratch. This also has the added
benefit of getting patches and updates provided by the open-source community and eliminating costs of maintaining their own
proprietary, in-house developed software. Additionally, Microsoft now offers many different Linux distributions as virtual machine
options on its Azure cloud service. According to official Microsoft sources, the Azure service supports CentOS, CoreOS, Debian,
Oracle Linux, RHEL, SUSE Linux Enterprise, OpenSUSE and Ubuntu.

Reflecting on a recent article published to ZDNet, there is an apparent common perception among Linux and the common open-source
users that Microsoft is evil and has no interest in free and open-source software. At some point in the company's history we're not
going to deny the perception has some truth to it. The company vision under the guidance of former CEO Steve Ballmer could only be
described as narrow-minded and dark. It was clear the company was heading in the wrong direction. It was clear for a very long time,
yet Ballmer seemed determined to continue on its dark and misguided path. This was reinforced when the company replaced Ballmer in
favor of Satya Nadella. The change in company vision was stark and was quickly embraced. The company's evil past has mostly been
left in the shadows and with a new focus, vision and embrace of Linux and free and open-source software.

Whilst we would not go as far as to say Microsoft is going to open-source its Windows operating system anytime in the foreseeable
future, releasing one service at a time and embracing open-source software and giving its development a small boost by occasionally
releasing code can only be a good thing for the development community, with added benefits of increased interoperability between all
software across all platforms.

Change Movement Initiative is encouraged by the recent passage to adoption of stronger data protection regulations, by the European
Parliament. The new regulations are formally recognized as the "EU General Data Protection Regulation" and abbreviated as "GDPR".

The regulations expand to almost 90 pages, outlining the technical, often complex, legal framework. It must be acknowledged that the
regulations are only applicable to operators that offer services in the EU, regardless of where they are based.

Change Movement Initiative have been working very hard on a similar kind of data protection regulatory framework, which could effectively
be adopted and used as a template for building a similar, less complicated set of regulations and attempt to regulate the collection and use
of data collected by operators of services outside of the EU which is not affected by the GDPR.

In our own framework, there are some striking similarities. In some cases, the similarities are intentional. Other times, it is pure
coincidental. The GDPR was approved by the European Parliament on April 14, 2016. It did not take effect until May 25, 2018. Change Movement
Initiative has been working on our framework for a lengthy, albeit unspecified, period of time with the common goal of achieving establishment
of a standard basis of rules for data protection regulation for collection and use of data of consumers, on the internet.

Change Movement Initiative presents the following framework, completely independent of any other proposal, associated parties or implemented
data regulatory regime, anywhere in the world, other than acknowledgment of our parent company and our authorized third-party consultants that
contributed.

The Framework Proposal

The proposed framework presented by Change Movement Initiative is to be formally recognized as "Universal Data Protection Regulatory Framework"
and abbreviated as "UDPRF".

ARTICLE 1

The UDPRF is applicable to all service providers that offer services of any kind through the generally accepted mechanisms of the internet.

Having regulations which are applicable to only specific jurisdictions has implementation problems with enforcement and leaves limited options
when regulations are not followed. Rather than have the regulations drafted to be implemented into specific jurisdictions, UDPRF should be viewed as
a platform which can remain flexible, therefore encouraging global adoption as required according to each jurisdiction. However, there is the ever
present problem of enforcement at the global-level.

ARTICLE 2

Service providers must clearly outline and specifically define the data that is being collected, how it will be used and what third-party
applications it will be applied and shared with. This may include full names, physical addresses, cell phone numbers, GPS locations, IP addresses and
internet and cell phone app tracking software used to collect the identity of any such data.

ARTICLE 2a

Operators must present clear and easily understandable user agreements to consumers, which do not present complex, lengthy legal jargon which can
confuse or compel the consumer to simply click "AGREE", simply as a result of pressure from user agreement text being too complex, leading them to not
understanding the implications of their consent.

To find the correct balance between ensuring all corporate legal terms text is outlined, and present, but also to remain easy to understand for
consumers and those not of legal interpretation will be a delicate task. One suggestion is for the consumers to be presented with a simplified version
of the full text with a hyperlink to the full legal text of any applicable user agreement that requires consumer authorization to proceed. An alternative
suggestion, and a more promising approach, could be to have a simplified version of the full text and the full legal text displayed side-by-side, of any
applicable user agreement. Therefore, this leaves the decision to the consumer, as to which text the consumer reads to execute their decision. This will
ensure all requirements of any possible additional data regulations are almost guaranteed to be met.

ARTICLE 3

Service providers must specifically declare as to why any applicable data, as specified in ARTICLE 2, is being collected and whether the data will be
technically anonymized or indexed in identifiable format.

When selective data is collected, there is the potential for the collected data being used for more than one purpose. Also, there is the potential that
operators may anonymize some data but not other data, leaving it identifiable. If data is collected for mixed purposes, with an additional mix of anonymity
and identifiable data being used, this must all be specifically declared by the operator, accompanied with an acceptable reason of why a mix is being
collected and used.

ARTICLE 4

Consumers must have and retain a right of access to any collected and stored data, along with retaining the right to amend data if it is declared incorrect
in its detail, by the consumer.

ARTICLE 4a

Consumers must have and retain a right to control through limiting the use of their data in algorithms and other forms of artificial intelligence
technology.

ARTICLE 4b

The "Right To Be Forgotten" is a crucial element of any data regulation text. Equal to the right of consumers to have access and the ability to amend data,
they should have the right to request for the instant removal and complete unquestionable deletion of their data.

There should be no obvious challenges with this item, if implemented correctly by the operator. Consumers must be provided streamlined, free access to some
type of secure purpose-built data access portal to their personal data, which also allows the consumer to make any necessary changes. We are adamant that the "Right
To Be Forgotten" rules are applied, without delay. In addition to consumers being provided with a data access portal for updating their data, there must be additional
access to the ability to order their data removed from the service, by the operator. When initiated by the consumer, the operator has the immediate and uncompromising
obligation to comply with the data removal request.

ARTICLE 5

Relative to ARTICLE 4b, operators must have and retain a right to employ defined exemptions of data removal in relation to specific legal obligations on
existing or known pending investigations related to that data. Additional data removal exemptions may include data deemed to be vital to the public interest, for
scientific purpose or where historical records are to be preserved for genuine archival purpose and allow it to be preserved for a set time frame, accordingly.

There must be a certain amount of flexibility permitted with ARTICLE 5, to allow for exemptions to be adapted to legally integrate with existing law in the
jurisdiction of where the data protection regulations are adopted, without allowing for misuse or non-genuine reasoning for the operator to refuse the data removal
request by consumers. This will be dependent on the urgency and severity of the nature of the cause for possible exemptions.

ARTICLE 6

Rules outlined in the UDPRF or any derivative regulatory set of guidelines, must be allowed to be enforced by a relative, applicable and approved legal body
in the jurisdiction the regulations are adopted. If providers are found to be deliberately avoiding, abusing or not following the regulations, then a fine of 4% of
global revenue of the provider be applied. (The figure of 4% is in parallel with the fine percentage outlined in GDPR, which we believe to be a fair percentage.)

Enforcement of data protection regulations must be followed through in full and operators penalized to the maximum that the regulation specifies. There should
be no leniency in penalization when evidence is present which proves deliberate abuse of the regulations by operators.

ARTICLE 7

Industry standard (at a minimum), strong and secure encryption of all network communications and server data storage involved in the process of data collection
and storage, must be employed. There should be no exceptions or compromises by operators, who should have a legal and ethical responsibility of ensuring the security
of the consumer data.

Operators must be open to possible independent security auditing where there is reason to believe that deliberate non-compliance with data protection regulation
is being carried out. Secure collection and storage of data is a priority to protect consumer's private data. This must include all associated third-parties, who must
also adhere to secure practices of encrypted data storage. It must be accepted that this is nigh on impossible to monitor, for obvious security reasons surrounding the
implementation of encryption. However, the possibility of independent security auditing must be considered where credible evidence of abuse of data protection
regulations and lapse security technology implementation can be presented, prior to an audit being initiated.

Concluding Notes

Change Movement Initiative has developed a simple data protection regulatory framework that could be adopted and modified as necessary, to act as a platform to go
towards improved global data protections of consumer's private data. However, we must point out the obvious fact that it is not perfect, nor is it intended to be perfect
or to be viewed as a legal document proposal, in its current form. There are many loop holes which would require closing prior to being given serious adoption
consideration. Instead, we view it as a starting platform which provides just enough detail which makes clear the blueprint of what is trying to be achieved by any
potential data protection regulations.

Data protection regulations are only the beginning of further necessary frameworks which must be developed, as there is still much more work to be done to improve
consumer data privacy and security.

Improvements to data privacy and security are just two elements of greater reform which is needed. Change Movement Initiative also believes that regulations must have
an extended agenda which aim to provide the consumer with more control over their data, where it is collected, who it is shared with and who has access to it.

One of the greatest challenges remains implementation specific to jurisdiction, according to international political and legal locales. This can be followed up with
ongoing, equally challenging and most likely ongoing pursuit to ensure proper enforcement of all regulations - especially at a global-level. This, accompanied by the
obvious fact that there remains no global authority which can enforce such rules surrounding data regulations, which draws regulations back to having to be drafted for
specific jurisdictions.

It is confusing, challenging and an extremely complex balance to get right. Change Movement Initiative truly believes there is no ultimate 100% fool-proof solution
to the problem. But we equally believe that we must urge policy makers and government legislators to do more than what is currently being done. Because current efforts
are lackluster and offer consumers almost no data protections at all.

As more internet services are designed around user data, the way in which these services collect, store and use the data is a growing concern to Change Movement
Initiative. We commend the EU for their significant effort and response in this area, which has improved things, with limitation. But as we mentioned earlier, there is
still much work to be done and we must not ignore issues as critically important as protection and security of consumer data.

CloudFlare has got the company into a position where it has a major influence on internet accessibility of certain websites. This is
primarily evident for users of Tor Browser. The service has a major customer base of both independent and major owned and operated websites.

There are options and steps that website administrators can take which essentially make access to their website(s) much easier for users of
Tor Browser, instead of hiding behind CloudFlare walls which force users to painstakingly attempt to gain access by toggling through
reCAPTCHA. Too many times, web administrators do not make the necessary changes required to allow Tor Browser users easy access, as non-Tor
users.

Change Movement Initiative would like to make it clear that although the primary responsibility lies with website administrators, CloudFlare
also have a key responsibility to ensure their customers know of options to make access for Tor Browser users easier and to ensure free passage
for internet access to these websites for everyone, whilst ensuring that the websites remain protected from DoS attacks using CloudFlare's
technology and as intended.

We are calling on CloudFlare to continue to evaluate and explore options that the company can take to make its service cater better for all
internet users and assist in the promotion of freedom of information flow which result in improvements towards net neutrality.

CloudFlare should take a leading role in the internet accessibility stakes, specifically for users of Tor Browser. The current limitations
and roadblocks placed on Tor users is unacceptable and Change Movement Initiative believes that there is much more room for improvements to be
made on behalf of CloudFlare and its services.

We are dedicated to advocating and promoting net neutrality. Current practices which CloudFlare implement do not follow the basic principles
which enable for true net neutrality and freedom of the internet. Some could make the argument that the company's service is assisting towards
promoting a form of internet censorship.

Change Movement Initiative has not contacted CloudFlare about our concerns, but clearly the issues are reaching the company as on March 30,
2016, a post appeared on the company's Blog, making claim that 94% of Tor traffic that flows through CloudFlare's network is "malicious". The
company claims the source of the research data was gathered from network usage statistics from their service. Change Movement Initiative has
concerns as to the accuracy and validity of the statistic of 94% and suggests it to be inflated to some extent. Our own organization intends
to contact CloudFlare directly in response to these claimed statistics and ask for a release of documentation to support the claim.

The Tor Project made their concerns public by publishing their response the following day in a Blog post on March 31, 2016. The claimed
statistic of 94% of Tor traffic flowing through CloudFlare to be "malicious", also raised the alarm bells inside the project's members. The
Tor Project has also called for CloudFlare to explain how it arrived at this inflated figure.

Change Movement Initiative intends to contact and work with The Tor Project through advocating that CloudFlare continue to make improvements
to its service, to make access to websites hiding behind the company's security walls easier for Tor Browser users and to strive for improved
measures which aim to support the basic principles of net neutrality.

Update: Since the original publication of this article, Change Movement Initiative contacted both CloudFlare and The Tor Project.
Despite repeated emails and us being bounced around to differentemail addresses within the company, CloudFlare was not willing to
respond to our concerns and refused to comment. The Tor Project was more positive and did respond to our concerns and expressed a genuine
appreciation for the efforts of Change Movement Initiative to press this issue.

March 28, 2016 | Global | Tor Usage in Public Libraries

In a ever connected world, user privacy has become essential to the protection of not only the private details of internet users, but
equally as important is internet usage habits.

There is a global push towards increasing the level of privacy for internet users through increased use of encryption. We view the use of
the internet no different and there are methods you can use to protect your privacy on the internet. Primarily, you can protect yourself and
remain anonymous by using Tor Browser, which encrypts web traffic and routes it via The Onion Router (Tor) network.

A traditional safe-haven for people to go to use the internet is through using public computers in city libraries. Although city libraries
offer quiet environments without the immediate threat of spooks looking over your shoulder, there are still remaining privacy concerns for
people who use these public systems.

The level of security implemented for these public access systems will vary greatly from city-to-city and library-to-library. There is no
unified rule of law that governs these public access systems in libraries. We certainly don't believe there should be. However, we do believe
that much more could be done to go one step further in assisting users to protect their privacy and usage habits on library computers.

Change Movement Initiative believes that the tools to provide the security to achieve protection and anonymity already exist, with the Tor
Browser Bundle. It is available for free, allowing anyone to download it and connect to Tor, securely and anonymously.

Unfortunately, there are still many public library computer systems which run old, outdated, insecure internet browsers which are often very
controlled in their ability to browse the internet and in too many cases do not provide any form of security and anonymity to the user. This
leaves users with very little choice to protect themselves in libraries.

We will seek to push our global agenda for libraries to implement and offer access to Tor Browser.

Change Movement Initiative will advocate Tor Browser to be made readily available for access to anyone using public library computers for
internet access. We also encourage more resource friendly libraries who have the ability to run a Tor Relay, to do so. But at minimum, Tor
Browser should be an option made available in all libraries in an effort to help protect the identity, usage habits and privacy of its user.
This should also be accompanied by educational informational on Tor network and the Tor Browser, which details in basic and
easily-understandable technical jargon what Tor is and how it works to protect the privacy of its users and allows users to remain anonymous
on the network, through encryption.

February 23, 2016 | United States of America | Apple Fight For Encryption and Against Backdoors

February 16, 2016, Apple released a Statement which enforced the company's position on the request put forth by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).

The legal filing from the FBI compels Apple to cooperate in-full with the investigation into the San Bernadino terrorist
shooter. Specifically, the request was made in relation to breaking into the iPhone smartphone device that was retrieved by law enforcement
authorities.

The request implies that Apple are to develop a version of its operating system that runs on iPhone devices, with an intentional backdoor
built-in, which would possibly allow Apple and the FBI to bypass or break the encryption and access the iPhone's data.

Change Movement Initiative supports the position taken by Apple and believes that if any custom developed operating system or its source code
were to leak from the company and end up in the 'wrong hands', the overall effects would be detrimental to Apple's security of its smartphone
devices and encryption.

We also believe the FBI request is part of a wider legal game which could, if proved successful, potentially see a flood of other US law
enforcement agencies making legal filings against technology companies to develop methods (backdoors) of breaking and bypassing encryption.

This has a global effect on the rights to data privacy of customers of these devices and Change Movement Initiative condemns such action
taken by any law enforcement authority in the USA and abroad.

Change Movement Initiative supports encryption and maintains that data privacy remains a key element of the civil liberties of all citizens
of all countries.

To date (Feb 24, 2016), Apple has maintained its strong position against the legal filing and has not yet responded.

The Muldy Zone.net (v1.0)

We have gamers who prefer the consoles of PlayStation and Xbox. We have PC gamers. Then we have gamers who frankly don't give a damn about the platform the
game operates on. As long as the game is fun, the rest doesn't matter. Then along comes the new breed which throws the entire industry into a state of panic -
the mobile gamer.

The mobile gaming sector is often frowned upon by hardcore gamers who believe it's not a true gaming platform. Some going as far as to claim mobile gaming
is an insult to the industry. There has been something missing from the mobile gaming sector, that being there has been no serious contender that is credible
of being marketed as 'made for gamers'. With the incoming arrival of the Samsung Galaxy Note 9, things might just be about to change.

The Note 9 is being touted as a device made for gamers. Albeit, it's not the official marketing banner. But let's face it, if you're a mobile gamer, the
Note 9 is tempting. Its focus on gaming is made even more obvious with the backing of the popular game, Fortnite. The Note 9 is the first Android-enabled device
to support the game.

Mobile gamers have some decent smartphones available. Most are more than capable of playing the most popular and graphics intensive games available from the Play
Store. But there is always that underlying annoyance of the small screen size. Even a smartphone with a large screen can still sometimes seem too small when
gaming. Sure, there are tablets available which can compensate. And it's true they do give you a much bigger screen size. But they can sometimes be too
big and uncomfortable to hold in your hands, often requiring an awkward holding technique to get hands and fingers in the right spots to be able to reach the
controls of the touch screen.

We have placed lots of hope in the Note 9. It looks great and appears to be the device mobile gamers have been waiting for. We
certainly hope that when it arrives, it's able to meet the market hype being thrown out by Samsung's marketing guys. It might very well be the device that gives
the mobile gaming sector the respect it deserves and earn it its rightful place in the hostile industry.

********************************************************

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - Member of The Greens (Queensland) (v2.0)

#politics

ABOUT ME

I'm an English-Kiwi-Aussie, born in Australia to a Father from England and a Mother from New Zealand. Born in Eildon and raised in country Victoria in the
town of Wangaratta, I moved to the State of Queensland in 2000.

I am a small-time internet entrepreneur and have worked with independent media for many years, including time spent with several popular technology publications,
before founding Freedom Publishers Union with my business partners. This would eventually lead me to take certain political issues more serious and unintentionally
place me into a position where I would take a more important stance on Australian politics. My involvements started with the Pirate Party of Australia. But out of
discontent with the party's efforts and productivity, I founded Democratic Pirates Australia and stayed on as President while continuing to advocate and adhere
to the core principles of pirate politics.

It was late 2017 when Democratic Pirates Australia was acquired by Freedom Publishers Union that I made the decision to join The Greens. A current
member of the Queensland Greens branch, I have a political focus on South-East Queensland from the Gold Coast, out to the country towns of Warwick,
Stanthorpe and Toowoomba. I continue to advocate for reform on copyright, digital rights, encryption, privacy, civil liberties, human rights, humane treatment of
animals and respect to the environment. I'm currently a public advocate for Creative Commons and The Tor Project.

At the time I joined The Greens I was also the Editor of Freedom Publishers Union. It was February 2018 when I decided that I could no longer
continue in such a critical operations role of an independent media organization and remain a member of a political party. I decided it could be
publicly perceived to be a direct conflict of interest. Although I was confident I could fulfil my role as Editor without political bias getting in the way, I wanted
Freedom Publishers Union to continue to thrive towards success and I felt I had put the wheels in motion for this to continue, following my departure. I remain an
Advisor to Freedom Publishers Union, but my occasional guidance offered to the organization has no operations value and has absolutely no political influence on their
strict editorial processes.

In July 2018, I became a Representative of the political advocacy initiative, Democratic Political Front. I remain a Member of The Greens.